HOTEL PURCHASE

Dominion, Volume 18, Issue 54, 28 November 1923, Page 13

HOTEL PURCHASE

CLAIM AGAINST BROKER. Mr. Justice MacGregor was occupied ’in tho Supreme Court mi Monday and yesterday with the leaving of a civil action in respect of an hotel transaction. Plaintiff was John Thomson, retired hotelkeeper. of Wellington (for whom Mr. C. H. Treadwell appeared), and tho defendants were Thomas Beaumont Dwan and Lamartine Dwan, hotel brokers and financiers (represented by Mr. O. G. White). ■ ■ , x . x . For plaintiff, it was stated that in December, 1922, he, by defendants, who were acting as agents, entered into a contract with Harry John Palmer to sell the lease of the Tauera Hotel, near Masterton, for a total of £l2OO, possession to be taken on January 15, or as soon as a certificate to hole! tho license were granted. On January 31, defendants. allegedly agreed with plaintiff that if ho would give possession to Palmer, they would pay to plaintiff £l2OO, the purchase money of the hotel and premises. Relying on this promise, plaintiff allowed Palmer, who had then obtained his certificate, to take possession. The average monthly profits of the hotel were £BO. It was further, alleged that defendants had not paid the mone'ys payable under the terms of the contract. Plaintiff claimed to recover £2571, made up of £l2OO payable under the terms of the contract; £371, value of the stock of liquor, stores, live stock, etc., and £lOOO for damages in respect of defendant s alleged default. Defendants stated that they were acting in tho ordinary course., of their business as agent for plaintiff. They denied that an agreement had been made with plaintiff in regard to a promise to pay him tho purchase money conditional upon Palmer being given possession. It was. admitted that Palmer had entered into possession, but it was denied that plaintiff allowed him to assume control relying on any promise made by defendants to plaintiff. Defendants also alleged that bv reason of tho fact that plaintiff had been convicted cf perjury in September, 1922. and the publican’s license had been forfeited as a consequence and also because he had failed to pay fee, Palmer did not obtain a pub.ican's license until June. 1923. There should be no indemnity, it was contended unless defendant had assumed primary liability. “s Honour said that the burden of proving the contract was upon plaintiff, but even if it were assumed that the contract had been proved, it would be unenforceable on account of tho statute of frauds. Judgment would be for the defendants-