S.M. COURT.

Bush Advocate, Volume XXIII, Issue 76, 31 March 1911, Page 5

S.M. COURT.

YESTERDAY"

(Before Mr S. E. M'Carthy, S.M.)

H. Gebbie, for whom Mr Fitzherbcrt appeared, sued Norman L. Gurr, who was rerjiosented by Mr H. li. Lusk, for tho sum of £SO damages, etc., in respect of a transaction in which plaintiff agreed to purchase a house, from one Alexander, provided defendant financed tho transaction. After detailing the grounds of the action, counsel tor plaintiff called: Heber Gebbio, bootmaker, who deposed that some time in 1909 he entered into some, negotiations Avitli Alexander to purchase a house, which fell through, and later Gurr came to him in regard to the matter, and subscquently a meeting was arranged between witness and Alexander at Gurr's office. Witness told Gurr that he only had £SO. Gurr stated that he would obtain the balance, £4OO, from the Government. Gurr expressly stated he would finance the transaction. Upon these terms Alexander agreed to sell. Gurr drew up the contract of sale and Alexander signed it. Witness did not. Asked Gurr to ascertain what the whole transaction would cost witness. Later Gurr came to him and said he could raise £450 on the property, which would cost witness 2s Id per week per £IOO. Witness took the contract home to read it, and before signing read Gurr's assurance that he would finance the transaction without any trouble. Upon these conditions witness signed the agreement. Left the matter then to Gurr, paying £SO as a deposit. Subsequently Gurr called and stated the Government would only advance. £350, and further stated that would be enough, and filled in an application for a loan of £350. In answer to the application, the Government Advances Office granted a loan of £290. Some months after- J wards Alexander pressed for a final ] settlement and defendant told witness to refer him (Alexander) to defendant. Gurr then stated ho could arrange a loan through Mr Somerville, but after several valuations the money was not secured. Some time afterwards witness received notice to give up possession, but defendant advised him not to take any notice, of it. In the transactions Somervillo was not representing witness. Gave Alexander a promissory note for £4O. Witness was going to work one day, and met Gurr, Avho asked him (witness) to go and seo Alexander, who was in witness' office. Alexander wanted the matter fixed up finally. Gurr stated that Somervillo was in Wellington, and would bring the money back with him. Alexander said he could not wait, as he had no money with him. Gurr said he would advance Alexander £5, which he did. Somervillo returned without the money, and witness again received notice to vacafo the premises, but defendant advised him not to go out. The property was later sold by Alexander and witness had to vacate. Subsequently Gurr demanded the £5 he had advanced Alexander' from witness. Altogether witness had lost about £6O over the matter. To Mr Lusk: Witness expected that ho could borrow £4OO upon the property, consequent upon defendant's assurances. Defendant led witness to understand that he could get the money for 7 per cent. Witness paid 2-5s to bring a prospective lender intorduced by Mr Somervillo from Wellington. K. H. Alexander, journalist, of Napier, deposed that he had several conversations with Gebbie and Gurr, the result of them being that witness sold his house to Gebbio. A deposit of £SO was j)aid. Gurr assured Gebbio that £4OO could be obtained from the Advances to Workers' Department. Gebbio was ''nervous" of the whole transaction, as he only had £SO. Went to Gurr some months after the sale to have the matter settled. He referred witness to Somervillo. The latter assured witness the money would be obtained for Gebbie. Gurr gave witness a cheque for £5 upon one occasion as an advance on behalf of Gebbie. Cross-examined: He distinctly understood that Gurr would finance the transaction. This closed the case for the plaintiff. Norman L. Gurr deposed that he had never been the agent of the Advances to Workers' Department in Dannevirke. Remembered interviewing Gebbie as to buying Alexander's house. Gebbie stated that he would receive about £75, and that his wife had some money. Witness interviewed Gebbie several times and ultimately he (Gebbie) signed the contract note. Gebbio requested witness to forward an application to the department for £4OO. At Gebbie's request, and as his agent, he (witness) forwarded the application for the loan some time in January. Never undertook to obtain tho money. Finally a sum of £290 was obtained. Introduced Gebbie to Somerville at plaintiff's request, but had nothing to do with their dealings. His connection with the matter ended upon the deposit being paid. Cross-examined : Was of the opinion that Gebbie and Alexander had concocted the story they had told to the. court. Ma 3' have filled in the application form for the loan, to the effect that the property Avas "worth, £560. Did not think he had, and if it was so it was at plaintiff's request. This closed the case, and his Worship reserved his decision. It was agreed between counsel to take the evidence in the case as evidence in the case in which Gurr claims for tho recovery of the £5 advanced by him to Alexander from the latter.