GUARANTORS' CLAIM.

Evening Post, Volume LXXXIII, Issue 98, 25 April 1912, Page 8

GUARANTORS' CLAIM.

SIDELIGHT. afternoon the Court of Appeal commenced the hearing of an aotion connected with Wonderland (Miramar). - The parties were Heathcote Beetham ,-tVilliams, Dudley Bruce Hill, and Arthur {•Spry Gwanas Carlyon, all of Hawkes Bay, appellants, and - Miramar, • Ltd., of WelrJlngtoqi" respondent. * The Court consisted of the Chief Justice ' ©ir Robert Sfcout) and Justices Denniston, ' <3t>oper, and Cnapman. 2 Mr. C. P. Skerrett, K.C., with him Mr. <9 B. Morison, appeared for appellants, land Mr. H. D. Bell, K-P..^ with, him Mr. tfi. H. Treadwell, for the company. »In the Supremo Court action, plaintiffs Wiiaimed .that,' by a deed dated_ 21st March, f/1908 (and executed in consideration of Hheir guarantee to an overdraft of £4835 [*itk the Bank of New South Wales for the Miramar Athletic Park and Wonderland j*sfoinpany), thß defendant company had that, if the guarantee were not ift^reniirtyed. they would, on 31st March, £p&O9, allow the guarantors to remove the HfiJaiUlings . and fixtures (other _ than, • thei at Wonderland. In this evept a Scectiiin contract to purchase £^*een wMiramor. Ltd., and the Wonderland OomFjpiiny was to bo terminated. Or, in the pi^teniaiive, Miramar, Ltd., would pay to fr.plaiuxiffa -the sum •of £2351 ss, and take «.-Sner. the, land 6 a,nd buildings belonging to bifte Wonderland, Company, and terminate frify&'&gt dement. ' •tThe Wonderland Company had pur--IWbaeed- some 39 acres from the defendant *.cpropttny, and -had paid £2351 ssj but was w default with respect to further instaljjyemts and' interest. By the terms of a -kleed Miramar, Ltd., had agreed not to theso payments until 31st March, [SlBOl9, and plaintiffs alleged that when that | d/rte_ .arrived, an agreement _ had been j%inado to defer the matter still further, and "ihatf long negotiations took place I -without* any agreement being arrived at. ' plaintiffs, in terms of the '. -agreement of 1908, called upon Miramar, .'(•jSd.*. to pay- the. sum of £2351 ss. . ' fin addition to denying severalmatters, l^tMiroaiar, Ltd., defended the action upon rt#e grtuad that Williams, Hill, and Car- ( nyon. had lost their right under the qua- ' "rSnteek. and, moreover, precluded _ them-~6elve»-£rom making any further- claim. * >In giving judgment for the company, , ditr. Justice Edwards said : "Plaintiffs, i -assuming every matter both of fact and I ■><rf_law i in their favour, cannot put -thei^ -case higher than, this, that they were in- ' «d)iced,*"to abstain from making their elec- ' tjon. tmder the deed, of 21** March, 1908, '. '£ff ■the'conduct of the defendant company, i TwhEKjit- -led them" reasonably to believe that rtt&e defendant- compacny- agreed^ to extend / -tfihd time for making that election until it Iffiad been ascertained whether or not the [^defendant company, the Wonderland liObmpany, and the -plaintiffs, could come Vt6-a Y f*efin arrangement binding- upon all \/parties\ /parties ac ix> that matter. After the /^letter of 13th July, 1910, the plaintiffs >oonld no longer have any doubt upon that i opattsr. Yet they did_ not purport •to Ivnfake their election until 23rd November '-fiollowmg. It reqojres neither authority f nor argument to-BiKw.that-thiß was much J too. late." 1 The hearing was- adjourned- until • to-, ?iday. Argument had not concluded - when fEhe PosC went to press. ,