A DISPUTED CONTRACT

Evening Post, Volume CVI, Issue 13, 16 July 1923, Page 8

A DISPUTED CONTRACT

. The decision of Mr. Justice Salmond in the' case of Peter Nicholas Branigari against Joseph Sa-ba .-has.been given at the Supreme' Court.- By 'an "agreement in_writing of 16th November, 1920, the plaintiff agreed to sell and the defendant agreed to purchase certain leasehold I premises 'of the plaintiff for. the ' price of £1200. The price was to be paid ,by instalments, and the purchase; was to be completed on 15th November, 1923, in-terest-on the-unpaid purchase money being payable,\% the purchasei'-.' in the meantime. The purchaser entered into possession on 27th-November, 1920, and retained ..possession until 14th; April, 1922. The purchaser then repudiated the agreement and abandoned the premises: ■In-an-action-instituted., .by the defendant in the' Magistrate's Court and removed into the Supreme Court; he endeavoured to enforce the contract for'the-purchase of the leasehold.by suing!'for an unpaid jnstialmen^.of^the. purchasp money. In -.this action'judgment was given in favour "of the defendant, on the .'ground that the contract was illegal and void, inasmuch as the purchaser, being a!. Turkish subject, was a person of enemy origin within .the meaning of the .'War Legislatibn Act, 1918: In the present action the vendor the purchaser, for the sum of 4J2J.3 fp.r the use and/odcupation of the leasehold premises, for- the sum of £109 7s 6d.as the value of the: plant and stock in itr'ade,; arid the sum of £20' 5s for damage alleged to have been done by the-.defendant to the property. From WieHotal.'of these claims the plaintiff deducts the sum of £100 already., received by*-him,from the defendant-- as instalments of 'the purchase money under the contract.. The defendant pleaded that: (1) Since \the plaintiff's claim arose out of an illegal contract he. could not succeed ; (2) the matter was res judicata because of judgment in the first action ; and (3) as to the .claim qf £20 5s no damage was done to the "premises! After, reviewing the-facts and the law at some length, liis Honour cave iudemmt for u the plaintiff for the Uof & with costs, disbursements, and witnessed expenses.' At the hearing; Mr. D M Findlay appeared for the plaintiff and S'MfwS."'^ ""P^ted.by Mr: