SUPREME COURT.

Press, Volume LXVI, Issue 13737, 19 May 1910, Page 5

SUPREME COURT.

CIVIL SITINGS,

The Civil sittings of the Supreme Court was continued yesterday before Mr Justice Sim. wilso.v v. Allen. The hearing ot the case of Wilson v. Allen, in which £332 was claimed on a dishonoured cheque was continued. Mr Dougall appeared for the plaintiff, and Mr Wilding for thc defendant. The case for the defendant had closed th; previous day, and yesterday morniug 'Mr Dougall" opened for the plainliif, and called evidence. Hugh Leaf Wilson, the plaintiff, said he had fir.t s-eon the defendant in July lost, when Allen had replied to a land advertisement. On February 23rd he saw Aden nlxnit tho Ma taura property, but nothing was said theu about disponing of thc Dromore land. On March 7th Allen eamo to Ins office, and he read the agreement over to him. Allen then mentioned the subject of disposing of his Dromore property, and witness took tho necessary particulars. Those were the first instructions he had to sell the Dromore land. Up to that time he knew nothing of Allen', financial position. Alien told him that ono of his neighbours had asked for a first refusal of port of the Dromore land, and mentioned the nanus of other people in the district who, ho said, would bo most likely to buy certain blocks, lie (witness) visited 'Dromore, but only one of those referred to by Allen seemed at all likely to purchase." Ailen. when told

ot this, said it did not matter, for people would buy at auction if they did not buy privately. On March 10th be told Allen that the option on the Mataura property would cease that day at •") p.m. unless a deposit were paid. .He told Allen he might be able to.turn the property over at a profit, for he had received advice from his Gore assent that such could be done. He showed Allen the telegram-. Allen then said he could not pay the deposit, and witness agreed to lend hali the amount on condition that he received one-third oi the proiit on the resale of Gait's proportv. An agreement to that effect wan drawn up and signed by witness and Ailen. Allen gave witness a cheque for £332, half tho amount of the deposit, and asked that it should not be prc-ontod tor a time. The sale of the Dromore land was then not mentioned. All«n .signed the agreement with Gait, and tho question of disposing of {he Dromore land was then discussed. Allen suggested that Frir.dlander .should sell the property by auction, and ho (witness) agreed at, tho interview with Mr Fncdlauder. Allen said lie had paid .the deposit on tlie -purchase from Gait. So conversation relating to tho condition of disposing of the Dromore laud, such as had been related, had taken place in Friedhndcr's oflico in his presence. The property was put up, but no part of it was sold. Ho had suggested to Allen that the cheque for the deposit snould bo post dated, but Allen replied he would prefer that witness should keep it for a time before presenting it. After the c'ttempted ruction sale, it was agreed that he and I<Hollander Bros., should still act in conjunction "n an attemot to sell tlie property. On April Sth * he received telegrams from Allen stating that his Drome re property was withdrawn from sale, and that tho agreement with Gait was cancelled, and the Mataura property was also off tho market. A lon saw him later on, and, asked him what commission he was feoing to charge He told Allen ho would charge tho full commission, and Allen then said it that were done ho would help Gait io fight witness. The cheque for the deposit was presented at the Ashburton branch of the bank and dishonoured.

To Mr Wilding: Before the auction ?«?*!. R. he Fric dlanders told him that it the- Dromore land was not sold they would finance Allen. Before that ho (witness) told Allen he should be able to finance the two properties. The arrangement was that he should-present'' Allen s cheque after a few days, for xvllon told him he had not sufficient funds at the bank at:the time to meet the cheque. .He agreed to hold the cheque for a tew days. John White Bradley, laud salesman for Speirs and Wilson, gave evidence that he had not guaranteed tho sale of ■.the Dromore property in twenty-four hours. Allen told him he was pretty confident his neighbours would buy tho land, and he (witness) said he did not anticipate there would be any difficulty in getting rid of tho land. Allen certainly understood ho had to pay tho deposit of £664 on March JOth, and the balanco on April 20fch. He said nothing about being unable to find tho money. After the agreement had been received from Gait for the sale of tho -lataura property, Allen put his Dromore property iv tho hands of .''Wilson ' ir.r sale. Alkn had made no stipulation whatever regarding the sale of his Dromore land before he bought Gait's property. <I ,i ,°:^ r Wildinsc: It was understood that tlie Dromore property was to be sold before April 20th. William W. Allender, land salesman for Speirs and Wilson, said he saw Allen in February concerning tho purchase of a Southland property but Allen said nothing then about selling Dromore.. Afterwards he said if two blocks were sold it would enable liim to finance. He also mentioned the -names of several people who would bo likely to buy. Ashley G~. Cooper, accountant for Speirs and Wilson, also gave evidence and the case for the plaintiff closed. ' ' His Honour put tho following issues WVi I * l7 *"; 1, , Wm the cheque for £332 delivered by the defendant to the Plaintiff on condition that i_ should not bo presented for payment until after thc defendant's farm at Dromore was sold ? _>. Did Bradley represent to the 'defendant that the plaintiff had buyers for the defendant s farm? 3. Did the plaintiff represent to the defendant that he had purchasers ready to buy the said farm? 4. If tho said representations wero made were they made for the purpose of inducing the defendant to agree to the purchase of Gait's farm? 5. Did the defendant rely on these tioi-s? 6. W T ere the said representations untrue?

His Honour, in summing up, said that if the jury found for the defendant they would only deny the right of the plaintiff to recover the money in respect of the dishonoured cheque, and that would not affect the ■ plaintiff's right to recover tho whole of th» amount advanced by the plaintiff to the defendant for Ahc purposes of a deposit. After a short retirement the jury answered each issue in the affirmative." ~ ildil) « moved for judgment for tho defendant. Mr Dougall applied that judgment should be reserved until he had jiarl an opportunity of moving that judgment slKiild bo entered for the plaintiff. His Honour said he would enter up judgment for the defendant, with costs as per .scale,' and disbursements and witnesses expenses to be fixed by the Registrar. The sum of .ClO 10s wa.. allowed for second day. and £3 3s 5"" an interlocutory order' givin--' leave to defend. **

Leave was reserved" to the plaintiff*' to move for judgment within fourteen ! days, and a stay of execution was! granted far that wriod. The Court wa* then adjourned until 10 a m today, j