MISREPRESENTATION ALLEGED

Evening Post, Volume CVIII, Issue 78, 29 September 1924, Page 3

MISREPRESENTATION ALLEGED

CLAIM AGAINST A LAND AGENT.

A claim for the return of a- £50 deposit from a land agent, and the sum of £25, being damages foralleged misrepresentation, engaged the attention of Mr. W. G. Riddell, S.M.y at the Magistrate s Court-on Thursday. The plaintiff was' William M'Keag. tailor, of Wellington, and the defendant was R. Leslie Jones, a land agent. The statement of claim set out that in January, 1924, defendant offered to sell to plaintiff a house, and negotiations were entered into. Plaintiff alleged that ddfeudarit represented' .'thjit there was a Government mortgage" on the 'properly for £1000 ' with interest at 4£ per cent., interest and principal being repayable by .monthly instalments of £5 Bs, and that plaintiff ■ could Uiko over the mortgage on those terms. 3t was further alleged by plaintiff that it was represented to him that he was. entitled to apply for, and obtain, a loan from the Slate Advances superintendent for an amount not exceeding 95 per cent, of the purchase price, and. that interest would be at 4^ per cent.; and, further, that in the event of the application to the State Advances being unsuccessful, the deposit of £50 would be refunded. It was alleged that the defendant's statements were not true, in ■ that the plaintiff could not obtain a transfer of the Government mortgage with interest at 4J, per cent., and that he was not entitled to, and apply for and obtain, a loan from the State. Advances.

The defence was an absolute denial of misrepresentation, either wilful or innocent, sand evidence was called in support. In regard to the legal aspect, counsel contended that a land agent acted on behalf of the'vendor, to whom any deposit must be paid, and was not in the position of, a stake-holder. Concerning_ the action for deceit, it was maintained that a land agent was only liable when a contract had been brought about by means of his fraud. If the land agent had innocently represented certain facts leading to the contract, and this in pursuance of instructions from his principal, which were false, either fraudulently or innocently, then the principal was liable, not the land agent. The contract before the Court;, submitted counsel, was adequate, and even failing sufficiency, as it had been rescinded by mutual consent, it had accordingly been reaffirmed, and the land agent was entitled to his commission. Decision was reserved. Mr. F. Haigh appeared for plaintiff,.and Mr. NY. B. Brown for defendant.

Tlio number of deaths from consumption reported to tho Lancashire County Cmiiii-.il in 133J wo* Hio lowest over reWteWtt.