SUPREME COURT.

Press, Volume LXII, Issue 12505, 18 May 1906, Page 3

SUPREME COURT.

CIVIL SESSION'S

Tho Civil Sittings of the Supreme Court were continued yesterday, before Air Justice Denniston. A LAND TRANSACTION. Eliznl>eth Adelaide Bell, wife of Adelaide Bell, of Temple-ton, farmer. proceeded against Charles Hill, of Christchurch, .solicitor, the said Charles Hill as executor cf th« will of Margaret Adelaide Rebecca Foreman. late of Hornby, widow, ami Margaret Ann Hampton, of Hornby, claiming that. .-. certain »t;rf emetit ffir the sale ct a certain piece of lar.d between the testatrix and Mr Hill should be set avide.

Mr Stringer nnpeatvd lor the plaintiff, and Mr Harper, with 3tim Mr Dcugail. for the defendants.

The statement of claim set out that the plaintiff ar.d the defendant, Margaret Ann Hampton, wt re daughters of Margaret Adelaide Rebecca foreman, who died • n February lSth. l!K)n, by whose will the defendant. Charles Hill. was appointed f-nle executor and trustee, and forty-cue acres cf lar.d situated to Islington was devi-ed tt> hint upon trust to cenvey the sain? to the. plaintiff absolutely. The residti-' was bequeathed to the plaintiff ami the defendant. Margaret Ann Hampton, in equal shares as tenants in common absolutely. On October 12: h. IUO->, the defendant. Charles Hill, induced the said Margaret Foreman to agree to isell to him the forty-one acres devised to the plaintiff, and at the time of making the agreement the defendant. Charles Hill, was acting, and fcr same yean-, prior thereto, had actrd as the solicitor and confidential adviser of the said Margaret Foreman. The said Margaret Foreman was of German nationality, and unable to read Knglish, and at the time of signing the .stud .agreement was ;-evonty-Mx years of r.ge. and was in a feeble state of health. The terms and conditions of the agreement were not fully explained to or undenstoed by the .said Margaret. Foreman, nor had she any independent advice, in respect thereof. At tho time the agreement was signed tho property affected had a prospective value for cutting up into allotments far in excels <yf tho price agreed to be paid by the said Charles Hill, and the terms and conditions of the agreement were unfair to tho said Margaret Foreman, and improperly favourable to Hill, and were such as tho testatrix would not have agreed to had she received impartial and independent advice. If the agreement for sab and purchase was valid and binding in law it effected a conversion of the land included therein, and tho purchase money would fall into the residue, and Margaret Hampton was accordingly joined as a defendant at? tbo residuary legate© interested in maintaining that 6tich conversion was effected.

Tho defendant. Charles Hill, in his statement of defence, denied that ho had induced Margaret Foreman to agree to sell the land to him. He also denied that the terms of the agreement were not fully explained to or understood by Mrs Foreman, or that she had no independent advice in respect thereof. Further he denied that the property had a prospective value for cutting up into allotments or that tho agreement was unfair to Mrs Foreman. The defendant also alleged that the property was placed in hie hands for sale on March Ist, 1904, since which date tho property had been repeatedly advertised for sale, but tho best offer that could bo obtained was £25 per acre. The last Government valuation was at a rato considerably less than £35 per acre. The land had been offered to several people at £35 per acre, but tho offer was declined. Mrs Foreman had endeavoured foT some time to persuade him to purchase ot £35 per acre, but after refusing on numerous occasions, ho eventually agreed to purchase on the terms and conditions set out in tho agreement. Tho terms and conditions of the agroemenfc were fully explained to and understood by Mrs Foreman, aud she had independent advice concerning tho sale. Subsequent to the sale Mrs Foreman informed her relatives and friends that she had sold her property to him, and expressed herself perfectly'satisfied with tho sale. The agreement contained no condition harsh or unfair to Mrs Foreman, and tho value of the land did not exceed £30 per acre at tha outside, and the purchase money agreed to be paid for tho said land was fully £200 in excess of its value. He had offered to transfer to tho plaintiff all his interest in tho agreement on payment of the £50 he had paid by way of deposit, but the plaintiff declined to accept. Separate defences wore put in by Charles Hill, as executor of the will of Mns Foreman, and Mrs Hampton, both of whom alleged that, the agreement was perfectly fair, -and that Mrs Foreman had been fully aware of its effect.

Elizabeth Adelaide Bell. Jhe plaintiff, stated that, she was a danghler of tho late Mrs Foreman. Her mother died on February 18th last, at tho age of seventy-five years. She was of German nationality, and spoke broken English. She was also hard of hearing. She could not read in English, and could only write her own name in English. During the last twelve months her health had been breaking up. To Mr Harper: Witness knew the property whioh was sold to Mr Hill. She first heard that the land bad been sold the day after her mother died. Arthur Bell, farmer, Weedons, and Margaret Sears, widow, Christchurch, gave similar evidence.

Mr Stringer said that no fraud or personal misconduct was imputed to Sir Hill, but the question was whether tho transaction would stand in the face of the relations existing between MiHill and Mrs Foreman. Subject to tho right to call rebutting evidence, he would close his case, for the onus was on the other side to prove that the transaction was, under the circumstances, a proper one.

Charles Hill, called by Mr Harper, stated that he was a solicitor practising in Christchurch. and had acted as solicitor for Mns Foreman for about two years prior to her death. Site was a shrewd, businesslike woman, and he had always been able to make her understand what he said. He had not noticed that she was deaf. She first saw him about tho property in March. 1004. and asked him to try and sell it for her. and he advertised it" well. In October, 1905, Mrs Foreman asked him to buy the property at £'35 per acre, and he advised her to sell when the lease terminated in 1907. He told her that he did not want to buy. and she replied that he had before offered her £35 per acre, and should keep to his promise. She wanted £200 deposit, and he informed her what tcrmr* he would agree to. Subsequently Mrs Foreman returned with a Mr Kerr, to whom he explained the proposed terms of tho agreement. The two left without anything being settled. A day or two afterwards Mrs Foreman came back and said that she was prepared to sell on the terms proposed. He would not have purchased on any other terms than those decided on.

To Mr Stringer: He carried on a land and estate agency as well as the business of a solicitor. Ho did not adv.se Mrs Foreman to consult anybody else relative to the terms of the agreement

John James Kerr, watchmaker, Christchurch. stated that he had known tho late Mrs Foreman for the past seven or eight year;. About October last Mrs Foreman came to him and told him that she could get £33 p.'r acre for the land from Mr Hill, who was to pay £50 down, and the balance ac 'he sold the sections. At her request he went round with her to 6oe Mr Hill, who explained the terms upon which he would purchase. Mrs Foreman appeared to be satisfied with the price, but _he stated that she would prefer cash. Mr Hill replied that he would only purchase rha property at the price on tho terras he proposed. Mr Hill

wae not anxious to bay, R nd advised Mrs Foreman to keep tho property tor twelve months, until the lease over it had expired. Witness knew the property, and considered the price given by Mr Hill was a very good one. Albert Rotorua Graham, solicitor, Christchurch, 6tafed that ho was managing Mr Hill's practice. He had seen M--S Foreman on many occasions before the agreement was signed, and found her a good bvsiness woman. Before the agreement was completed Mr Hill called him into his office to explain the terms to Mrs Foreman, and Mr Hill went out of tho room while that was being done. Mrs Foreman then signed the agreement in his presence. She was a little hard of hearing, but could understand perfectly what- he said. Janice Leslie, manager of the Islington Freezing Works, stated that the land was worth, for agricultural pnr-pc-ses. about £15 per acre. It had some valur» for cutting-up purposes, but there did not seem to be a Tery great demand for sections at present. He would not like to give more than £25 per acre for the land fcr cutting-np purposes. Mrs Foreman had offered to sell him the land on various occasions. Mr Hill, on behalf of Mrs Foreman, bad offered him the land at £35 per acre, but he would rot buy at that figure. Albert Fre.man. Government valuer, stated that when hehad last, valued tho land, he put a. value of £13 per acre upon it for agricultural purposes. He would not care to give more than £22 prr acre for it for cutting-tip purposes. Land values in the district had remained practically tho tamo for a number of years past. Arthur P. o*Callaghan, Government valuer, valued Mrs Foreman's land at from £10 t:> £12 per acre for agricultural purposrs, and he would not advise anybody to give more than £30 at the oi:f-:ide' for cutting-up purposes. There was very little demand for section., l in the district. Margaret Ann Hampton. of tho defendants in the action, and a daughter of the late Mrs Foreman, stated that her mother was in very good health up to October last. Her mother had told her many times that she would sell tho property. She had told her that Mr Hill had offered her £35 an acre for tho land. Her mother, when she was ill, entrusted tho copy of tho agreement to her. Thomas Hampton, husband of the last witness, stated that Mrs Foreman had told him that she had sold tho property to Mr Hill for £1435, £50 to be paid as deposit, tho balance to remain at 5 peir cent. She said that she was thoroughly satisfied with tho sale. She also said that she would cut the Bells off if she could. David Watson, Mrs Annie Cox, Mrs Mary Drayton, and Mr John Sadler also gave evidence as to hearing Mrs Foreman talk about selling tho property. This closed the cnea for tho defence. Mr Stringer then called David S. Kinross, of Hornby, who stated that Mrs Foreman had told him that she had sold the land to Mr Hill. He understood her to say that she would not get the purchase money till the lease was up, in fact, she was not sure that she would get it then, but she was to get 5 per cent, while it remained outstanding. Mr Harper asked that the legal argument might be heard at a later date. His Honour said ho «cd not see why the matter should be adjourned. It seemed to him that the conditions of tho agreement were fully explained to Mrs Foreman, and on the quest'on of values and terms she had tho advice of a competent friend. It seemed to him that the only question he had .o consider was whether, looking at tho law relating to tho position of a solicitor and client, tho bargain was on© of such a character as ,to suggest its being against Mrs Foreman's interest. Tne facts wore not in dispute, and the law on the matter was clear. It was an injudicious thing for a solicitor to deal with a client except through the intervention of another solicitor, and in doing so he took the ri?k of having j tho whole matter upset. [ Mr Stringer said he would argue that the contract was one which no independent solicitor woukl have advised Mrs Foreman to enter into. Mr Harper submitted that the contract was one which would have been approved of by an independent solicitor, and that the transaction should not bo upset. Mr Dougall, who followed, contended that the agreement was not unreasonable in it<» terms. Mr Stringer having replied, Bis Honour reserved his decision.