SATURDAY.

Press, Volume LXVII, Issue 14055, 29 May 1911, Page 8

SATURDAY.

A BROKEN TENANCY

CLAIM FOR SPECIFIC PERFORMANCE.

Tlus hearing of the case R. H. Emerson v. H. A. Wilson, claim for specific performance, and £22 los rent due, was continued. Mr Wedde appeared for plaintiff, and Mr Hunt for defendant. R. H. Emerson, the plaintiff, stated that defendant signed a document agreeing to rent the house and land for 12 months, defendant signing it also. He had not met Wilson up to thia point. He first met him two hours afterwards. • No guarantee whatever had been given by nim as to the house being dry. Judgment was given for the plaintiff for the rent claimed, £22 los, without prejudice to the plaintiff to sue for repairs, etc. in the Magistrates' Court. Costs would be aiowed plaintiff on the claim and counter-claim.

George McClure claimed from Jane Hogg, as administratrix of the estate of 'i'tiomas Hogg, deceased, specific performance of an agreement to sell, or £500 damages. Mr Free Appeared for plaintiff, and Mr Stringer, with him Mr Meares, for defendant.

Mr Free said he understood tho defence was that there was no authorisation to sell. Plaintiff was a farmer at Killinchy, and defendant the widow of a farmer in the same place. Defendant's business affairs appeared to have been conducted recently by hor son, William Hogg, who informed

plaintiff that the property was to he sold by auction by Matson and Co. The auction sale was held and the plaintiff bid £27 10s per acre for the particular lot. The auctioneer referred the matter to Mr William Ho—- who was present, and he received instructions to soil. Plaintiff paid his deposit and on the day fixed for the completion of the sale he was informed thero was some difficulty, and had since ascertained it was not intended to complete tho sale. The authorisation of the sale had never been denied, the only statement being that Mrs Hogg had since changed her mind. Sir Stringer said the defence I alleged that William Hogg s agency was strictly limited to a j reserve price of £30 per acre. He further submitted that Matson had no !' authority to sell after the auction sale, j I Furthermore, assuming Matson had j ! that authority once, ho knew Mrs Hogg ! was opposing the sale, and he had no I right to si_n tho memorandum. If, j there was a valid contract specific per- j formance could not be granted in that j i Court. because defendant had no power : of sale. The conditions of tbe pile: should have had a proviso for all the j other parties entering in, because de- I fr--'l->nt hnd not tbe rower t*i so 1 ' i outth. con-entof the olierlenen irks. ; After hearing evidence and argument by counsel his Honour snid defendant could not be compelled to give a title. She sold as an administratrix, .nnd sbo could not do that without the consent of all the beneficiaries. A.s to whether or not this was a conclusive contract such as to instifv ; i damnrrps for a bron.ch of it, his H-""**>*"r j l-n]rl rh->t only noni'**" l d !>'«!>£'*'« _"^- 1 lie given, if any. If ho gave plci "* ff such nominal he would not "ive him costs. Both counsel agreeing, his Honour gave judgment for defenI d-nt without costs.

The Con*-* then adiourned to June oth, at 10.30 a.m.