FOXTON DISPUTE.

Dominion, Volume 4, Issue 1017, 5 January 1911, Page 3

FOXTON DISPUTE.

AN UNCOMPLETED AGREEMENT. Mr. Justice Cooper, in the Supremo ,Court yesterday, delivered reserved judgment in a case concerning a hotel property at I'oxton. At the licarplaintiffs, Frederick Spencer E::ston Md" Barbara Ellen Austin (executrix ol' 'tho will of Herbert Austin, deceased), were represented by Mr; Treadwcli. -Mr." A. S. Monl'eath appeared for the defendant, John. Rainbow Stansell.

Plaintiffs alleged that on August 31, 190G, the defendant agreed to sell Whyte's Hotel 'nt-Foxton for J:G000 to the piaintiff. Easton and Herbert' Austin (since deceased); According to the plaintiffs tli6 sale contract covered the whole of the property about the hotel, including n section known as Allottmenl' No. G, containing 1 acre 1 rood 24 perches, which was separately fenced when the sule 'occurred. The sale was completed on October 31, 1900, but the plaintiffs alleged that by accident or mistake Allottment' No. G was excluded from the sale agreement. They claimed, therefore, a title to the disputed allottment. Defendant denied that the transfer of Allottuieiit No. 0 had .been a condition of the sale agreement. . His Honour found, upon the evidence, in favour of the plaintiffs, and declared himself satisfied that .the verbal agreement preceding the.r.ale and purchase of the hotel and property contemplated the transfer of the section in dispute. It was omitted by mistake from a conveyance executed on October 31, 1906, ami plaintiffs had continued in the belief that the section had been legally transferred to them. In view of these facts, his Honour directed the defendant fo transfer allotment, number 6 to the plaintiffs, free of encumbrances. A claim, by the plaintiffs, for damages would stand over,..in order that both parties might be allowed to call evidence. Plaintiffs were ento costs of suit, upon the middle scale, but the actual amount would be determined after the evidence referred to had been, called, t