LAND AGENT AND CLIENT.

Hawke's Bay Tribune, Volume IX, Issue 80, 19 March 1919, Page 4

LAND AGENT AND CLIENT.

“HE HOLDS If STILL " I At the Harting'- Magistrate's Court, ’this morning. Mi 11. W. Dvor, N.M., 1 d(<livi’i<<d Jus ii'.imi] iudginent in tlm [rasp s,'pil Kolmrt Au-hiliuld Ci-x (Mr. Duff,) v Sjdn.’.v Martell, kind agent. I late <>f t)n-.tin;i» (Mr. Mi Wilt, in which plaintiff elninis to reinvcr, fiom the defendant. LlOO. which, it is alleged, the plaint ill pan! as a conditional deposit on the sale and pini linse ot’ 70(1 acres in the Muungnki block, held hv .Mr. W. 11. Me. l h .‘-I, a I. I I’ lease. 11l Eebiuarv, i!”?, plaint.li i.ol into touch with defendant, who took him to inspect the llanoat.iki piopiitv. Plaintiff 'Hid bo <oiild lint l>uv any more land, until ).<■ had sold bis propci ty m the Ulin 11 in m island-, conipri-iiig L’2(to acres and also a block leased trom Dr. Pc.mere. He also toll! deloml.iut that he was not eligible lor a (>nv ei niin-n: leasehold, as long as ho hold 22< 1 acres oi land elsewhere. The plaint iff paid tho defendant a deposit of I<K) on the purchase oi the Mangaiulu property upon the condition tii.it it was contingent on the plaintiff selling his Chatham Island property ; and thut if the plaintiff could not sell the Chatham Island property, the deposit was t-o he returned to the plaintiff. The plaintiff' stated that tho defendant told him that if the plaintiff was unable to complete the purchase he would refund the £lOO and that he would hold tho deposit in the meantime, so that there would be no trouble in getting it back. The plaintiff also stated that the defendant said ho would hold on to the deposit himself, and not give it to Mr. Mecch, the owner of tho Mangataki property, unless the plaintiff could complete tho purchase. The plaintiff stated that he did his best to sell the Chatham Island property but was unable to do so; and that he made repeated applications for the return of the deposit; but without, success. This evidence was uiicontrndicted by' the defendant, who was not called; and tho evidence therefore stands. The receipt for the £lOO mis dated tho 6th of February, 1917, and stated that the money “is a deposit on W. H. Meech’s farm sold this day.” A sale-note was also signed by the plaintiff the same day, hut does not contain any reference to the condition upon which tho deposit was paid. His Worship reviewed other evidence and said: The only witness called for the defendant was the owner of tho Mangataki property, Mr. Meech. Ho stated that ho was away when the snlo was made and signed the sale-note on his return. He stated that he never received the £1(M; deposit, and never authorised the defendant to agree to return the deposit. Ho further stilted that, in the event of sale, the defendant’s commission would have amounted to about £137; and that the defendant had never made a demand on him for the balance.

The judgment concludes: “The position therefore appears to be that tho plaintiff entered into an agreement upon a condition which was never fulfilled ; and therefore there was no contract; and further that untilithe condition was fulfilled there was impossibility of performance. The defendant, so the plaintiff says, undertook to hold the money himself, in this respect at. any rate he seems to have redeemed his promise. Ho held the money ; he has not accounted to any one for it; he has held it for over two years ; and he holds it still.”

Judgment will be for the plaintiff, with costs.