HOUSING TANGLE

Evening Post, Volume CI, Issue 92, 19 April 1921, Page 3

HOUSING TANGLE

A PURCHASE THROUGH THE

DEPARTMENT

QUITE UNUSUAL 1 CIRCUMSTANCES.

His Honour Mr, Justice Reed gave an informal judgment in the Supreme Court yesterday aftsrnooii regarding the action brought by Susan Alice Hosie, who was represented by Sir Kenneth Douglas, against David Stone, for whom Mr. P. O'Rogan appeared, for the possession of a house in Leraud-street. The facts of the case were unusual, in that the defendant had purchased, as he believed, the house through the Housing Department of tho Labour Department, but the trouble arose through a clash as to the price to f, paid. The plaintiff had asked £775, but the Department had approved of £750 as the price, and some little time after the defendant had entered into possession a representative of a firm of land agents called upon him and demanded the balance of the purchase money, £25, intimating that if that sum were not paid the transaction would be called off. The request was not met, and the legal action was later instituted by the plaintiff-owner on the ground that tho defendant was, in the legal sense, a trespasser.

In his judgment his Honour said : "Endeavours appear to have been made to induce the plaintiff to agree to the reduced amount, and tlio defendant denies that he arranged with any land agents to pay the sum of £2-5 to the plaintiff. Ii in unnecessary for mo to decide whether he did or did not; suffice it to say that the plaintiff believed that defendant had agreed to pay the extra £25, aoid in that belief notified the Department that she had agreed to accept the sum authorised. From that time onward the defendant took up the position that he would not authorise the Department to pay, nor would he himself pay, the additional £25. The files show a lengthy correspondence between defendant and the Department. In order to endeavour to got over the difficulty theboard recommended the Minister to pa-y the additional £25, of course, adding it to the amount to be eventually paid by the defendant, but although the Minister agreed, the defendant would not consent. 'Die defence filed, after formally denying the ownership of tho property by the plaintiff and of the defendant being in possession, alleges: 'That if he is in possession of the said premises as alleged, he is in lawful occupation, and in accordance with the provisions of the Housing Act, 1919.' This is no defence, nor was it seriously argued that it was. Tho result is that defendant is in possession of these premises without any title whatsoever, and plaintiff is entitled to judgment. It lias, however, been represented to me that the plaintiff has no wish to dispossess the defendant, and both counsel have therefore requested me to assess the amount that should properly be paid by the defendant to the plaintiff on the assumption that the purchase of the property will now be completed. I am agreeable to do so. I find, as a. fact, that the agreed price fßr the land was £775. The plaintiff is entitled to interest at 8 per cent, on that amount from sth February, 1920, to the date that she receives payment. The defendant must pay costs to the plaintiff, which I assess , at thirty guineas and disbursements and witnessos' expenses to be ascertained by the Registrar. The above assessment of the moneys payable by the defendant to the plaintiff and of the costs is done at the request of counsel, and is in no sense a judgment in the action. Referring to the errors made by an officer of the Housing Department in the matter his Honour classified them as follow:—(1) In notifyine both plaintiff and defendant that the Department had: recommended the Minister to purchase the property at the plaintiff's price, £775, whereas, as a matter of fact,'the recommendation had been for £750. (2) In authorising the defendant to forthwith go into possession, implying that the carrying out of the recommendation to purchase at £775 was assured. (3) When it was dicovered that an error had been made with regard to the recommendation to the Minister, in advising- the defendant to disregard the request of the plaintiff's agents to agree to the personal payment by the defendant of the difference of £25.

His Honour added: "It is only fair to say that errors (2) and (3) were caused by the zeal of the officer in question to do the best he could in the interests of the Department's client, the defendant; and the errors were all committed before 21st February, 1920. Following on this was the letter written to the Department by the plaintiff agreeing to accept £750—written on the assumption that defendant would personally pay the extra £25. The plaintiffs letter was communicated to the defendant, who thereafter took his stand upon it and insisted on tho Department purchasing at no higher figure than £750. The Department had no enforceable contract with the plaintiff and could do nothing; moreover, it was soon ascertained tha,t the offer was conditional on the payment by the defendant, personally of the extra £25. The Department did its best to arrange matters, and as early as April, 1920, had obtained the Minister's anproval to the additional payment by the Department of £25 for the property, but the defendant would not consent to its beinc paid, but insisted on the Department holding the plaintiff to tho £750. . . . It is unnecessary for me to a-pnortion tho blame; the above are the facts."