SUPREME COURT.

Press, Volume LXIII, Issue 12972, 27 November 1907, Page 8

SUPREME COURT.

CIVIL SITTINGS. Tho ciril sittings of tho Supremo Court wero n*Biimod before Mr Justice Chapman vestrrday. ALLEGED FRAUD. The further hearing of the case, Joyco '-Mr l< razer) v. liarr (Mr Russell), claim £1000 for alleged fraud in connection with tho purchase by detondent of plaintiffs farm, was resumed. James tfarr. the defendant, in crossexamination by Mr Frazor, stated that on the day he bought tho land plaintiff asked tor a straight out offer, iind no mention was niado by him that the price he wanted was a.o per acre. Witness understood on the Tuesday l>eforu the sale, that .ioyco owed only £1000 to the North Canterbury Farmers' Co-operative, and that he wantex 1 that amount to pay it off. There wa-» no haggling when witness offered Lo per itcio lor tho land. Joyco men-tioiu-d that the Co-op, people wero piiAsiny him, and that he had an offer of an hot«l on tho West Coast. When ho made hi* offer he knew that .Mrs Jowm hud a right to livu in tho hou«i'; Jo'vco had not said that ho fJoycoj v.onlil pjy tho money payable to hm mother. ainoe the commencement of tho present action wit nose had not paid the money payable to .Mrs Joyce. 1' was witness's suggestion that tho to sell should bo signed co qiiidvly. Joyce mentioned that the Co-op, would loso their commission owto M'lling out to witness. Immediaifly wiin«6s got the land he got a mortgage lor i-000, and since then he guv« security over it in connection with t)ie purchase of another place. Witness left the Co-op, because they did not require hie services any longer. Ernest E. Papprill, barrister and solicitor, gave details regarding the drawing up of the agreement, which «as buoexl on information obtained by witness from Joyce and Barr who were pntjent when he was drawing it up, u.tid to whom he read it. When it caiuo to tho question of the mortgage tho information was obtained from Joyco, who also supplied tho name of the mortgagee—Mr Holdsworth. Joyco was not sure if the mortgagee would take his money; Barr did not seem to mind whethor it remainod on or was paid off. It was not possible for Joyco, to gather from the conversation regarding tho agreement, that he was to receive the purchase money mentioned, and that Barr would take over mortgage. It was understood at the time that if the mortgagee would not take his money Barr was to deduct the amount from the purchase money. From first to last nothing was said to Joyce that he was to get £5 per acre and the mortgage money. When witness ascertained that there were other encumbrances on the land, ho had figured matters out in tho presence of Joyce and Barr, and showed them that after allowing for all claims against tho land there would be a total deficiency of about £410. On May Gth Barr instructed witness to go on with the deeds, and had stated that he had arranged matters on a bnsis of £5 10s per acre. The total purchase money was £2738 9s Bd, and the total handed over in satisfaction of the Co-op.'s claims was £1079 ss. On May 9th witness hecamo aware that a third mortgage, unregistered, existed, Mr Chns. Hill, solicitor, telegraphing on that date, stating that a caveat had been entered against the registration of the deeds. The effect of Joyce's action in not giving information regarding this mortgage was to deprive the mortgagee of hie right to recover tho amount advanced. Tbe caveat was not proceeded with. The Mr Hill who was the mortgagee wae the Mr Hill who was Joyce's solicitor in tbe present case. To Mr Fraeer: Witness's client <Barr) was not expected to satisfy the third mortgage. It looked suspicious that Joyce did not mention the fact of the existence of the third mortgage, and did not seem straightforward. If Joyce honestly believed all through that the money paid for the stock would come to him, there would be nothing dishonest in hie saying nothing about the unregistered mortgageP —I don't know) I always expect a man to tell mc. Nicholas Joyce, recalled, stated that he did not know, personally or otherwise, a man named William Stanley, who had purchased a farm adjoining his Land Hie mind was a complete blank as to any interview with Stanley as to the price he (Joyce) got for his land. At a private meeting of hie creditors it was mentioned that each should back; him up in the present notion, but he did) not suggest that each should contribute £5 towards the payment of costs. His creditors had refused to find a shilling for the purpose of the action. Witness did not know who wae paying the costs of the action, though he had instructed Mr Hill to bring it. William Stanley, farmer, Papanui, stated-that a man that he could not recognise as Joyce had spoken to him a,t tho Rangiora sale eaying of Joyce's land: "I sold that place for £5 10s." \Vitness had just previously remarked that he (witness) had got his land cheap ac compared with Joyce's, which he understood was soM for £8. The price witness paid for Harris's land averaged about £6 per acre. To Mr'Frazer: He had sold out to Barr. Witness lost between £500 and toou on the transaction. Evidence was given as to the value of Jov< »a landTqp farmers living in the vicinity. John Hiatt stated that the ac he worked it out »"t *I Vfr t ' ,nclwlin g improvements. Robert Mclntosh stated that his estimate waa a frnction over £5 10s per acre. Samuel Kingsbury gave his estimate as £5 3e Gd. Counsel having addressed the jury hl «_Honour summed up at length. * * , S lu T l\l h * T a Bhort retirement, found that there was no evidence of fraud on the part of defendant. A verdict for defendant was accordingly returned, with costs as per scale. * A PECULIAR CASE. Eugene Laugier v. Michant (Mr \Veston), claim £675 as commission. Plaintiff, who conducted his own case stated tho facts and gave evidence at length. He stated that, having been in business ns a fancy goods merchant, ho made a deed of assignment for tho benefit of his creditors in March last in favour of Michnut and Co. At th<? same time defendant agreed to come over from Sydney at £5 per week to assist plaintiff to adjust his affairs. Plaintiff was then owfng about £4500, and he and defendant continurd as partners for some time. In May defondant had £800 worth of goods, there being besides goods of considerable value belonging to plaintiff. On September oth a fire occurred. After tho fire- defendant desired plaintiff to act for him in settling the" insurance claims, offering him 25 per cent, on tho amount recovered from tho companies. Besides, defendant promised him the uncoJleeted book debts. The supervisors settled tho~claim for £2500,, and he was of opinion that defendant had received £1500 more than he should. For face powder, for instance, costing 24s per gross, 42s was allowed— a very good sale. Plaintiff wished tbe case might come before the Criminal Court. He nad in black and white confirming all ho alleged. Cross-examined, witness stated that tho stock was worth £1000 at the time of the fire. Since coming to New Zealand plaintiff had borrowed, roughly, £2VX). When defendant arrived he owe<T about £7000, and ho had stock against t>- t valned at £4000, and book dobte at £600. The stock book (produced), showing stock to the value ot £2497 11s was written up by plaintiff. At this stage the Court adjourned ui'til this morning, when tho crossexamination of plaintiff will be continued.