AGE AND THE BORER

Evening Post, Volume XCIX, Issue 124, 26 May 1920, Page 8

AGE AND THE BORER

SELLING A HOUSE FALSE EEPKESENTATION ALLEGED. A claim for damages for alleged false representation on the part of the vendor of a house was before his Honour Sir ! Bassett Edwards and a jury of four j in the Supreme Court to-day. The fami- i 'liar features'of the ago of the dwellings and the presence or absence of borer ! entered into the case. The plaintiff was j George William Grundy, accountant, ; Wellington, and the defendant George '. Taylor Goodwin, company manager, also of this city. Mr. T. Young appeared for the plaintiff, and Mr. A. Grey,' K.C., with him Mr. R. Kennedy, for the defendant. Mr.' H. N. Garrington was foreman of the jury.

The position as set out in the statement of claim was that the plaintiff agreed to purchase from the defendant on or about 3rd February, 1920, a house in Belle Vue-road, Lower Hutt. Previously both the plaintiff and his wife had visited the place, and it was alleged that on the 22nd January the defendant's wife had stated that the house was eight or nine years' old, and there was nothing wrong with it. On. 23rd June the plaintiff alleged that the defendant, in answer to a question, falsely represented that the house was only nine or ten years' old, and that so far as he knew "there was no borer in it except in the lavatory, and that he had not seen any," and that the house was firstclass. These representations, it was claimed, induced the plaintiff- to purchase the house and land for £1300. The purchase was completed on the 19th February. .It was further claimed that before the purchase was completed the defendant became aware that there was borer in several parts of the house, and failed to inform the plaintiff of the fact. The actual age of the house was stated to be 15 years, and it was said to bo riddled with borer. The sum of £450 was claimed as damages.

The defence was practically one of complete, denial of false representation as to the age and condition of the house. It was quite true that he had not seen any borer hi the house itself; but he had been reliably informed that no house in the. Lower Hutt was free from borer. He had occupied the house for less than 18 months, and when he purchased the. house he had been informed it was 9 or 10 years old. He admitted that before completing the purchase he snw ,sign» of borer in the house, but. denied suppressing his knowledge of the fact. Evidence was given at length by the plaintiff on the lines of tlie claim. (Proceeding.)