Supreme Court.

Cromwell Argus, Volume L, Issue 2649, 24 November 1919, Page 5

Supreme Court.

Two local cases were heard before Mr Justice Sim at a sitting of the Supreme Court in Dunedin last week. Tlie case I'arker v Mel drum, a claim for specific performance of mi agreement was discontinued.

The second case was an action for £3OO damages for breach of a contract for the sale of the lease of the Golden Age Hotel, Cromwell.

Mr W. C. MucOregor, K.C., with Mr B, S. Irwin, appeared for the plaintiff, Thomas Quirk, hotelkeeper, Middlemarch ; Mr W. <!. Hay, instructed by Messrs Calvert and Brugh, for the defendant, Joseph Winter, hotelkeeper, Cromwell. In the statement of claim, it was alleged that, by an agreement, dated June 17. the defendant was to sell to plaintiff the whole of the furniture, stock, chattels, and effects in the licensed premises known as the Colden Age Hotel, Cromwell, also the goodwill of the place ; that the defendant should lease the premises and lands and transfer the license to the plaintiff for a term of live years at a weekly rental of £.">, possession to be given on July I, and that the defendant subsequently refused to carry out the agreement. The statement of defence set out that Ihc defendant denied that he entered into any agreement; that if an agreement was entered into it was not signed by him, and that no person bad authority to sign on his behalf: and, further that it win not in writing, as required by the Statute of Frauds.

Mr MactSregor sod that the parties were both hotelkecpers. The aefendant bad been for some years in Um Coldeu Age Hotel at Cromwell, in the lirst week in June he called on Mr James Samson, of Dunedin, hotelbroker, and told him be was in bad health, and wanted to sell the lease of In's hotel. A sale was made by Samson to the plaint-ill', and after a contract bad been entered into for a sale for £IOOO the defendant telegraphed that he had found he had no power to sell at present. After correspondence lie wired that it was impossible to sell. The two questions for the court were : Was there a valid contract, and what damages was the plaintiff entitled to for a breach of contract? From what could lie ascertained, tlie real reason for failing to complete the agreement was that the defendant afterwards discovered that he could have sold for £ISOO. All the witnesses were requested to leave the court. Evidence was given by the plaintill, Jus. Samson. William Quirk, and David Young. Mr Hay said the defence was that Mr Samson had no authority to sign any contract at all on behalf of the defendant; that he had no authority to sign this particular contract, and that the contract did not comply with the Statute of Frauds inasmuch as material terms were omitted. Mr Sa.nson could not bind the defendant to accept a tenant. It was impossible to think that the defendant would give Mr Samson authority to negotiate and complete such a complicated matter as the lease ol an hotel in these times. On law, and as a matter of connnonsense, Mr Samson could have no authority to make a concluded sale without lirst submitting the name of the prospective tenant to Mr Winter. Evidence was given by the defendant and Mr lirugii. . After counsel had addressed the court bis Honor reserved his decision-