LAND DEAL CLAIM

Evening Post, Volume CIV, Issue 24, 28 July 1927, Page 17

LAND DEAL CLAIM

FULL AMOUNT ALLOWED

JUDGE CRITICISES DEFENCE

The case in which Thomas Pierson Firman, of Lower Hutt, claimed £400 from Wilhelm Farquhar Eggers, land agent, of Wellington, alleging that.the latter had fraudulently failed to account to him for that sum, due from certain property, deals, was concluded in the . Supreme ''Coirt yesterday afternoon before, his Honour the Chief Justice (Sir Charles* Skefrett). Mr. O. C. Mazengarb acted for the plaintiff and -Mr. A, B. Sievwright-for the, defendant. ' - ';. ■■■■-■ "-. -.'; ■ '

: Digby. E. Perrett, a company manager, said that'Firmau took/SoO £1 shares in ;his company, giving him- an order;for £.300: on Eggers. Witness .was,unable to get the money from Eggers.who said several^times-that it was inconvenient for him to pay the ■amount, and who finally suggested that the mortgage of £300 on the Hopper street property should be made over to •witness. Witness.later found that the mortgage was not held by Eggers. Witness was given the impression that the account against the plaintiff concerned only a minor sum.

Mr. Sievwright. dealt at length with the financial relationship between the parties, and said that the evidence would show that the purchase price of the Hopper street property was £1350, not £1250, as the plaintiff alleged. His Honour: "Jit appears to me that all the evidence points very clearly not Gnce but many times, to the fact that the defendant owes £100 and £300 to the plaintiff, and so far "as I am. concerned, he has got to pay it." The defendant gave evidence regarding his transactions with Piraan, stressing the fact that Firman had agreed £■,«*? the H°PPer street house for £1350, and had paid £100 in cash J^iSf &So° on mortgage and £450 debited against him in the books of the partnership. _ His' Honour (after examining the ■Xn 1 ,e^l? sh°wing the debit of £450): "This entry is of no value at aJL The fact gives me the impression that this is not a. hona fide defence. 1 don't blame yon, Mr. Sievwright.*• Mr. Sievwright: "I understand from the accountants that according to the books there is a balance of just over £100 in the defendant's favour, giving Firman credit for the £300 by way of mortgage."

The defendant denied that the partnership accounts had been settled with the taking.over of the Hopper street property, or that the receipt for the £100 had any connection with the Karori sections.

John L. Arcus and G. F. Kemp, public accouutauta, gave evidence that according to the defendant's books a sum amounting to just over £100 was due.to him by Firman. In his judgment, his Honour said that he had found that there was a-relation-ship in the nature of a joint venture between the parties with respect to the Karon sections-.He was satisfied that tlie accounts had been adjusted between the parties and that the sum of £100 was agreed upon as being the indebtedness o£',Eggors : to the plaintiff in the joint venture. He accepted 'eritirelv the evidence of Firman"on that point". and declined to accept tho evidence ofEggers. He had no doubt that the plaintiff took over the Hopper street property, paying whatever he did pay in settlement of the accounts, and he held therefore, that the plaintiff was entitled to recover the two: amounts claimed, with mte?est. Costa were allowed to the plaintiff.