SUPREME COURT.

Press, Volume LXVI, Issue 13743, 26 May 1910, Page 2

SUPREME COURT.

CIVIL SITTINGS. The Civil Sittings of tho Supreme Court wore continued yesterday before Mr Justice Sim. HOPKINS v. DUN. In this case Allan Hopkins, oi Christchurch, land agent, claimed from David Dun, or Southland, fanner, the sum of £53 i4s 3d, alleged to bo duo as interest on promissory notes from August, 1903, to August, 1909. Mr Loughnan appeared for the plain, tiff, and Mr Beswick for the defendant. Mr Bcswick; who opened, said that Hopkins was a land agent in Christchurch, and during 1908 had purchased a property at Mataura Mains, Southland, which ho had resold in lots. As an inducement to Dun to purchase he had agreed to finance him and allow him a rebate of tho first years interest, excepting a sum of £12. The total purchasa money was £4000. A regular agreement for .sale and purchase had been entered into after dome correspondence, but no mention had been made in it of interest. Dun had signed a series of promissory notes, and the whole transaction had been completed without any reference to the iuinterest. Tho defendant had finally come to Christchurch and insisted or. tho rebate, and he was given a receipt dated July 28th, for £62—"£50 deposit and £12 as interest for first year as agreed." It was that one promissory note had been paid and accepted without any question oi interest, but on the second Hopkins had stated that he was placing tiie whole £50 against the whole of the interest, and on being told that this was wrong had allowed the matter to drop. The defendant, in the course of his evidence, said that when the purchase of tho property was arranged it was agreed that if he paid £50 deposit and gave a cheque for £12 ho was to be interest free for the first year, ile gave two cheques, one for £50 and flic other for tho £12. James Wauohop Dim, brother of the defendant, said it was agreed when the bargain was concluded that the sum of £12 was to cover the first year's interest. This closed the case for the defendant. Mr Loughnan, in opening for the plaintiff, said that the sum of £12 was accented as interest on the unpaid purchase money. £3200, for one year, but it was agreed that tho mode of payment of the remainder as arranged should stand. Allan Hopkins, the plaintiff, stated that £12 was the agreed interest on £32(yj for the first year. Luther Hopkins, solicitor, also gave evidinee, and tho case for the plaintiff closed.

His Honour said the only question to be decided was whether the £12 was in satisfaction of the whole of the unpaid purchase-money, or in respect only of the SO per cent, of the purchase-money that would remain unpaid after the £800 had been paid. He thought the plaintiff was not entitled to succeed on Ins claim for interest. He would be entitled to judgment for £51 2s, tho amount paid in. The plaintiff was ordered to pay the defendant's costs on the lowest scale. LANGESON v. SPENSLEY. Walter Langeson claimed Jrom Robert Fitzroy Spensley a sum of £300 damages for alleged breach of contract Mid for uork done outside of the agreement.

Mr Hunt, with him Mr Grcssou. appeared for the plaintiff, and Mr Wright lor the defendant.

Mr Wright took a preliminary objection that the action was tranicd as one for wrongful dismissal, v. hertas the agreement in dispute was ;:ot one for employment, but was in fact a partnership agreement. An application ?hould have been made for accounts, and the whole dispute gone into. His Honour said it seemed to him the relation between the parties was that r >f uartiiers.

Mr Hunt claimed that the relation was that of master and servant. If it was anything el.se it was tho relation cf landlord and tenant. Whatever the agreement was, however,' the damages were claimed for the breach. His Honour said the better plan would be to allow the case to proceed, in order that the facts, might be ascertained. Mr Hunt, in opening, said the. defendant was a storekeeper and business man of Flaxton. Ho obtained possession of a certain block of Maori land near Kaikoura, and suggested that Langeson should buy n herd of cows find run them on the land. That was agreed to, and a contract entered into whereby the property should bo worked for daily purposes, and the profits and losses divided. The property Was in a very rough state at the time, and all the* necessary improvements had been carried out by Langeson. who carried out his work in so satisfactory a manner that Spensley thought lie was allowing hirii too much. Spensley proposed a new agreement, but Lange«on objected. The end of it waa that Lanjjcson left tho plac?, being turned out improperly by Spensley. . . Walter Langeson, the plaintiff, gave evidence that he and his family devoted the whole of their time to the improvement and working of the place. The milk was never late for the factory, and was never rejected. A quantity of work was done that was not included in the agreement. After the milking season was over, two of his sens went out bush-falling in another part of the district. .Spensley objected to that, saying the boys should remain on his property. Spensley finally told him lie would have to leave the place, and gave him notice of the termination of the contract. ' , David Boyd, farmer.. Kaikoura. Richard Henry Haves, Robert Doyle, and Frederick* Hendry. r;avo evidence, and the case for the plaintiff closed. The Court was then ad'ourncd until 10 am. to-day. j