UNCOMPLETED DEAL.

Hawera Star, Volume XLVII, 12 June 1928, Page 5

UNCOMPLETED DEAL.

CLAIM FOR REFUND OF DEPOSIT

LAND AGENT AS DEFENDANT

The Magistrate’s' Court was occupied until late yesterday afternoon with the action Nicholas Murbagli McCarthy v. Francis Gordon Treweek. claim for the refund of £loo deposit oil the purchase of the Commercial Hotel. Stratford. After hearing lengthy legal argument, the court adjourned until 10 o’clock this morning. Nicholas McCarthy, continuing Ins evidence, said that the chief reason for abandoning negotiations was that the books showed that the bar takings were not up the amount, previously stated. , Mr. Spratt-: Did you not make arrangements to change your bank from Wanganui to Stratford on January 6 ' Witness: No. Witness, in reply to Mr. Spratt, said lie did not know what the average weekly takings of the hotel were. When’ he made his offer on December 21 to Treweek it was conveyed, to Rod lev, vylio turned it down. To ‘Mr. Houston: Witness said lie went to Stratford in company with his brother. He d.id not remember the date, but it was about January 11. Together they inspected the house and went through thei books, with the result that negotiations were abandoned. Mr. Bbdley was quite agreeable to drop the business.

DEFENDANT GIVES EVIDENCE. Francis Gordon Tie week, land agent of Ha worn, deposed that he went to Mr. B. McCarthy on May 23 in the hope that the matter would be amicably settled, as actions of this kind were no good to either party. He asked McCarthy if his- brother would deal with him m further negotiations in the purchase of the hotel, and being answered in the affirmative- wit-nes-Tasked for it in writing, bat- this was refused. Witness then brought up the matter of the return of the deposit. whereupon he was taken into Mr. Malone’s room, and while- there he promised to see his partner with reference to the order on the expected commission. Witness informed Malone the next morning by ’phone that if there was to he -any return of the deposit lie- would make it. conditional as a credit to McCarthy on the purchase of another hotel. Malone repudiated witness’s suggestion, asking him to get in touch with Mr. B. McCarthy that night. He then left the matter in the hands of his solicitor the* following morning. To Mr. Spratt: Witness received the deposit of £l5O while lie was- in Auckland, and 1 acknowledged receipt of same on January 9. Cross-examined by Mr. Houston, witness stated that with the- exception of a few pounds the £l5O had gone into his own private account. The- contract was made in the ordinary terms in wliicli dealings of this kind were made, subject to conditions. To Mr. Houston: It was a straightout contract to purchase. The- conditions were a mutual agreement between the parties. On his return from Auckland witness attempted to ascertain why the deal was called ofT, hut McCarthy was- non-committal. He rang up Nicholas McCarthy, hut- could get no further satisfaction. Witness was- fully convinced that he had earned his commission, a,nd did not feel justified in refunding the deposit. The matter of giving an order on expected commission was not his suggestion, but Bernard McCarthy’s. He had approached plaintiff’s representatives solely with the object of coming to some ami'able settlement. His Worship referred to the case as a most extraordinary tangle. The adjournment was then taken.

(Bv snecial arrangement. Renter’s World Service, in addition to other, special sources of information, is used in the compilation of the overseas intelligence published in this issue, and all rights therein in Australia • and Vew Zealand are reserved .l