Validity Of Contract Of Sale Disputed

Press, Volume CI, Issue 29855, 22 June 1962, Page 16

Validity Of Contract Of Sale Disputed

The hearing of a dispute over a contract for sale of property at Sockburn began before Mr Justcie Richmond in the Supreme Court yesterday. Bevan Conrad Brunt, a contractor (Mr P. T. Mahon, with him Mr D. H. Oldham), sought an order for specific performance of contract concerning the sale of a house and section at 204 Main South toad. The vendor was Edward William Victor Jones, a farmer, whose executors are challenging the contract of sale. Their main ground is that Jones, who had a stroke in 1959. was of insufficient mental capacity to negotiate the sale. Mr J. N. Matson represents the executors, the defendants in the action.

Opening Brunt's case, MrMahon said that Jones had from time to time sold pieces of land between the Main South road and the railway line near the Sockburn overhead bridge. In June. 1980, an agent, Philip Horton, approached Jones about the sale of the section on which his house stood. Jones agreed to sell for £2OOO. Brunt inspected the land on July 1, and Horton went to Jones with an agreement of sale. This provided for possession on January 27, 1961. Five months later Brunt was advised that the sale would be challenged by Janes’s solicitors. Soon after the writ was issued. Jones died, and the action was being continued by his executors. Horton, a taxi proprietor, was called to produce the agreement of sale. Defence Case Opening the defence, Mr Matson said that Jones took up the land in 1944, when it was much more substantial than now. He had a severe stroke in October. 1959, but continued to sell land after that His capacity fluctuated, and the transactions were confined to periods when he could understand what he was doing. There was a sale to H. W. Smith. Ltd., and another to a man named Currie. This transaction with Currie was in January, 1960, but was not concluded until September. It -was late June or early July when the present contract was signed; Mr Matson said that Jones's housekeeper, a Mrs Howell, had tried to. dissuade Jones from signing the contract, and the defence was that Jones was in no condition to negotiate a sale, and that this this should have been obvious to the agent.

Mr Matson called medical evidence as to Jones’s health before and after the stroke. Jones’s speech and reasoning were disjointed after his stroke, said Dr. R. W. Watson, and he had lost his sense of co-ordination.

Housekeeper’s Evidence Mrs Catherine Anne Howell said that Jones had been living at 204 Main South road for nearly 18 years. When he went there in 1944 it comprised nine or 10 acres. After his stroke in October, 1959, Jones never read. He used to try, but he could not. Sometimes he would hold the paper upside down. He did not know the difference. Mrs Howell said she recalled an agent’s calling on Jones. The agent said he had a paper for Jones to sign. She told Jones not to sign because he could not read the paper. Before his stroke Jones never contemplated selling the house block. He said he would never part with it. To Mr Mahon the witness said that under Jones’s will she received a legacy of £ 1000 and also whatever property at Sockburn he owned at the, time of his death. The rest of the estate went to her son. who lived two or three houses away. He had a joinery business there. I think Mr Jones gave K,. S 0 1? that P r °Perty in 1959. asked Mr Mahon. “I am not sure about that. He never quoted any of his business to me at all.” the witness said. She said her son did not know he had been given this propertv until Jones s will was read. February Sale witness said that H W. Smith purchased four acres of Jones’s land in February. i 960. This was after Jones had his stroke. She did' not know what price wa» paid. Jones had also sold a big section next to his house to a man named Currie. She had not raised any objection to Jones’s selling the land to Currie. It had nothing to do with her. She told Jones he should not sell his house property because he was over 80, and she did not see any sense in looking around for places at that stage of life. The witness agreed that she told Jones that, when Smith tried to buy the house property, she did not want to see the house sold— not in the state Jones was in. Questioned about Jones’s will, the witness said she did not know the house property had been left to her until the will was read.

The witness said that Brunt might have called to inspect the property, but she did not see him.

Mr Mahon: Mr Brunt will ray he called with his brother and that they saw

you and Jones for a minute or two at the house. The witness: I don’t know. I don’t know the man. I don't remember him. Mr Brunt will say that you made it clear that you didn't want the house sold, and Jones put his hat on and took them outside.—l don't know anything about that. The witness said that Jones told her he had sold the place for £17.000. She told him she did not believe it. This information was apparently passed on to Jones's solicitor, who came to the house next day. Asked whether she had known then that Jones had apparently signed a paper he should not have signed, the witness said she did not know about Jones’s business at all, and never interfered in it.

Mr Mahon: If this property is sold you don’t get it under the will, do you? The witness: I suppose not. Re-examined by Mr Matson, the witness said she had no idea how her son,-Andrew, acquired the land for his house and factory. The land was part of Jones's original 10 acres. Gift of Section

Andrew James Wijliam Howell said that Jones gave him a section 10 years ago, on which he paid only stamp duty, and later a quarteracre section for a joinery factory. He did not know until recently that he did not have to pay for it. He heard about the sale of the house block from his brother-in-law, Charlie Moore. He then rang Jones’s solicitor, Mr N. H. Buchanan, who came the next day. To Mr Mahon, the witness said he did not know Mr Buchanan had Jones's will for signing. He would not like to say whether or not Jones was in a condition to execute his will.

The hearing was adjourned to today.