DEAL IN FURNITURE

Evening Post, Volume CVI, Issue 55, 14 September 1928, Page 17

DEAL IN FURNITURE

lIOTELKEEPERS AT VARIANCE A case involving a dispute between two hotelkoepers over tho sale in May last of tho stock-in-trade and furniture of tho Trentham Hotel came- before Mr. Justice MacGrogor in the Supreme Court on Wednesday. The plaintiff was Hilda Ellon Nickolls, now of Kaikoura, and tho defendant was Thomas Quinn, of Trentham. Mr. H. F. Johnston, with him Mr. S. W. ITitzherbert, appeared for tho plaintiff, and Mr. W. Perry for the defendant. In tho statement of claim it was alleged that by an agrocmont early iv May the defendant agreed to purchase tho stock-in-trado and furniture of the hotel at a price to be fixed by valuers appointed by both sides. The valuers were duly appointed, and all tho conditions of tho agreement complied with by the plaintiff, but tho defendant failed to pay her the purchase money. A claim was made for £361 4s Id damages said to have resulted, from tho defendant's failure to comply with the agreoment. The defence was that negotiations had taken place between the parties in regard to tho purchase of the stock-in-trade and furniture by the defondant ou the understanding that the plaintiff's lease expired on 10th May. A difference arose between the valuers as to whethor a player piano should be included in tho furniture, the defendant refusing to tako it over aa he had n.6 previous knowledgo that it was to be included. An agreement was entered into by the solicitors for both parties in regard to payment for the furniture, but without prejudice to the plaintiff's claim to onforce the sale of the piano or the defendant's claim to possession. The plaintiff, it was alleged, had refused to give up possession, for 12 days and the defendant was therefore released from the agreement. A counter-claim was made for £209 12s Id special and general damages through' the plaintiff wrongfully remaining in possession. The plaintiff's answer to the counterclaim was that she was unable to give possession as she was unable to sell the furniture through the defendant's failure to comply with the agreement, and she was obliged to remain on the premises until sho could dispose of the furniture. Atfer hearing evidence his Honour dismissed both the claim and the counterclaim.