A STRIP OF LAND

Evening Post, Volume CXIII, Issue 34, 10 February 1927, Page 18

A STRIP OF LAND

LOWER HUTT PURCHASE

ARGUMENT OVER FRONTAGE

The hearing was continued in the Supreme Court yesterday afternoon of an action arising out of the purchase of land in the Lower Hutt. • The plaintiff was George Bardebs, labourer, of Wellington, and the defendant was Ernest Frederick TJpham, law clerk, as executor of the will of the late Harena Thomas, Lower Hutt. ACCESS DISPUTED. The plaintiff's statement was that on 6th March, 1926, he bought about 19 acres of laud in the Hutt district fronting the back Waiwetu road for £5941, paying a deposit of £594. In the conditions of sale the plaintiff alleged that it was represented that the land fronted the Waiwetu road, and he said he was induced to believe th;.i the land had direct access to the road. Since the date of the sale he had investi-

gated the titles, and had discovered that part of the land was intersected by a road or other land not included in the land agreed to be purchased. He alleged that the land he had bought did not front the Waiwetu road, and he said that he had discovered that part ■of the land was subject to a right of way, which he alleged was not mentioned in the conditions of sale, and which allegedly had not been disclosed. On discovering these matters, he repudiated and rescinded- the contract on Ist July, 1926. He claimed a declaration that the contract had been lawfully rescinded; that £594 .paid as a deposit and other sums of money incidental to the purchase be repaid. THE DEFENDANT'S VIEW.

The defendant denied that it had been represented that the land fronted the back Waiwetu road, and said that the representation made was that portion, of the land fronted the road as appeared in the plan attached to the [ conditions of sale. The defendant said he had been, and was, in a position, to give direct access from the whole of the land to the_ road. He denied that there was no direct access, and denied that the contract had been repudiated. He said that within, four days of the sale the plaintiff was awar# of the {intersection, and with such knowledge confirmed and ratified the sale, and had thereby waived all right to rescinding the contract. Since the purported rescission the defendant alleged that the plaintiff had dealt with the property as his own by entering into negotiations for a lease for the whole or part of the property. As a further defence, the defendant said that by order of the Native Land Court on 26th August, 1926, the purported right-of-way was reverted^in the defendant as. owner, and he said he was willing to transfer the strip of land referred to, and the result would then be that the plaintiff would have an interrupted access to the back Waiwetu road. The defendant counter-claimed for £821, -alleged to be due under the conditions of the purchase. . Mr. A. Gray, K.C., with him Mr. J. S. Hanna, appeared for tho plaintiff,, and Mr. H. F. O'Leary for the defendant. The case was adjourned till to-day, when further legal argument will be heard.