Supreme Court Dispute Over Cashmere Section

Press, Volume CI, Issue 29843, 8 June 1962, Page 14

Supreme Court Dispute Over Cashmere Section

The hearing began in the Supreme Court yesterday of a claim for specific performance of a contract of sale of a section in Dyers Pass road. The plaintiff is Laurel Alma Whitford, a married woman (Mr E. S. Bowie), who contracted to sell a section to Durham Dowell Hunter, a land agent (Mr P. H. T. Alpers), in November, 1954. The section of 38.2 perches was part of Mrs Whitford’s property at the corner of Dyers Pass road and Cracroft terrace, and the contract price was £1250. The plaintiff claims that the land was to be sold on the understanding that sc;wer drains on the land were to be shifted at her expense and that she retained an easement over the existing drive. The transaction of sale was settled on November 29, 1954, subject to the terms of an undertaking relating to several easements. She claims that Hunter then refused to grant the sewer easement, but a

certificate was later issued by the Heathcote County Council. The plaintiff claims that her undertaking to grant a gight-of-way over a semispherical extension of another right-of-way is so uncertain as to be incapable of definition, and consequently void because of the uncertainty. She says that Hunter has refused to grant her a right-of-way to give her access to her property, notwithstanding reservations in the contract of sale and the undertaking. She claims a decree that Hunter specifically perform the contract so that she retains an easement over the existing drive, and that he grant her a right-of-way. Hunter's defence is that the words “semi-spherical extension of the right-of-way” are not uncertain of meaning, and that they mean, in fact, a strip of land sweeping in an arc through part of Mrs Whitford's property—entering it and leaving it at the boundary—to give access to a garage planned beneath Hunter’s proposed house. Hunter says he refused Mrs Whitford her right-of-way because she would not give him that right-of-way for access to his garage. Unless she allowed him that, there was not mutuality in the contract. Counter-claim In his counter - claim, Hunter says he is willing to perform his part of the contract if Mrs Whitford will perform hers, and he therefore claims a declaration that he .is entitled to the garage-access right-of-way in accordance with the meaning of the ''semi-spherical extension” term. ! Mrs Whitford says in I defence to the counter-claim that the term was never defined by the parties in those words, nor did she ever agree to the meaning Hunter attaches to them. She says she did not refuse Hunter the garage access, which he had told her would have a depth of only sft, and that he was originally to have had that access at no consideration to her. She claims that when she was absent from Christchurch, Hunter trespassed on her land with bulldozers and men and excavated part of her land without her authority. She says she is still willing to perform her obligations under the contract. Mr Bowie said that while Mrs Whitford was quite prepared to grant Hunter the garage access over a small arc, she was not prepared to grant him rights over a considerable area which would cut into her property to a depth of 20ft—an area on which she would be paying rates. Mr Justice Richmond adjourned the hearing to today. (

Washing Stolen.—“Snowdroppers” are very active in Auckland and the police yesterday issued a warning to housewives to take in washing at night—or risk finding it gone in the morning. Washing left on lines overnight is being stolen consistently, and in some cases losses amounting to £5O worth have been reported.— (P.A.)