RELEASE FROM OPTION

Grey River Argus, 15 August 1934, Page 8

RELEASE FROM OPTION

Westland Theatres Ltd. CASE REMOVED TO SUPREME COURT. An unusual application was heard at the Magistrate’s Court at Greymouth yesterday, before Mr Henry Morgan, S.M. Mr T. F. Brosnan, acting nn instructions from Mr H. P. Smith, solicitor, Christchurch, applied for costs against Duncan McLean Ltd., merchants, Greymouth (Mr A. M. Jamieson), against whom a summons had been issued by H. S. Smith, brokei*, of Christchurch, claiming £290, monies allegedly due in connection with the flotation of Westland Theatres Ltd.

Duncan McLean Ltd. had applied to have the action removed into the Supreme Court. Notice of such application, however, had not been served within the time limit fixed by the Act, and accordingly Air Brosnan applied for costs of preparation of trial, pointing out that the Court had a discretion, and that the necessary papers were filed by defendant only the day previously. Mr Smith had been informed on the telephone late on Friday afternoon by Messrs Dunean, Cotterill and Co., solicitors, Christchurch, that the action would be removed into the Supreme Court, and it was obvious that he (Mr Smith) had prepared his case for hearing that day. The Magistrate said that, although it was unusual to allow costs on the removal of an action into the Supreme Court, still he considered that plaintiff, in the circumstances, was entitled to costs, which he fixed at £l. Ils'6d. The plaintiff, in his statement of claim, said: (1) That on January 18, 1934, the defendant Company gave the plaintiff an option to purchase certain land owned by it, and situated at the corners of Mackay, Herbert, and Boundary Streets, Greymouth. (2) That on the 21st February, 1934) by an agreement in writing, the plaintiff agreed to release the defendant Company from the said option for the consideration and on the terms set but in the agreement. (3) That it was provided in the agreement that, as part of the consideration to the plaintiff for such release, the defendant Company would pay to him the sum ot £440 in the event of the defendant company making satisfactory arrangements in regard to the erection of a building on the said land and the leasing of same. (4) That part of the said sum of £440, namely the sum of £290, was to be paid to the plaintiff under the said agreement when a lease was completed to the satisfaction of the defendant company. (5) That sati isfactory arrangements have been made by the defendant company, as provided in the agreement in regard to the erection of a building on the land and the leasing of same, and that a lease of the building has been completed to the satisfaction of the defendant company. (6) That the plaintiff has requested the defendant company to pay him the sum of £290, and the defendant company refuses to pay over the said sum. Wherefore the plaintiff claims to recover from the defendant company the sum of £290.