A DEAL IN LAND.

Mataura Ensign, 19 May 1910, Page 3

A DEAL IN LAND.

friE MATAURA FARNJ CASE. judgment gives, Tbe ■hearing of the case of "Wilson r. r Allen, in vyhich £332 was claimed on a dishonored promissory note, was 'continued in the Christchurcli Court yesterday. Mr McDougall ap-peared-for the plaintiff and Mr for the defendant. The case for the defendant had closed. the previous and yesterday morning Mr McDougall opened? for the plaintiff and called evidence.. . - . - . . Hugh Leaf Wilson, the plaintiff, said ifjyat foe' bad first seen, the defendant in. I .July last, when -Allen;; had replied tfo a ; land a'dvertisemerit. On February 23 he saw Allen about the Mataura property, but nothing was said then about disposing of the Drompre land.. On ! March "7 .'Allen came to his office, and | he read the agreement over to him. .jSltenfthen mentioned the subject of disposing <bf his Dromore property and witness took the necessary particulars. Those ?were the first instructions he had to sell the Dromore land. Up to that time he knew nothing of Allen's financial position. Allen told him that one of his neighbors had asked him for a "first refusal of part'of the Dromore land anU mentioned the names of other people. in the district who, he said, would "be most likely to buy certain blocks, tie (witness) visited Dromore, bht only one '<J'f ihoser referred to by Allen seemed at •all" likely'to purchase: Allen, when told this, said that it- did not matter, fori •people would buy at auction if they d id ;not; buy privately. On March 10. he "tdi'd "AJlen that the Mataura property would cease that day at 5 p.m. unless a deposit/ were paid. He told Allen i-.«j might be able to turn the property ! over at a' profit, for he had received advice from his Gore agent that such •coiil'd be done. He showed Allen th<? telegrams. Allen then said that he could riiot pay ,the deposit, and witness agrc«d" to lend half the amount on condition that he received one-third of the fprdftt on the're-sale of Gait's property.: !! An Agreement to that effect was drawn 1 up-and signed by witness, arid Allen gave'^witness; a cheque for £332, half the . amount of the deposit, and asked rtkat it should not be presented for a time. The sale of the Dromore _ land was then not mentioned. Allen signed the agreement with Gait and the question of disposing of the Dromore land was tthen discussed' Allen suggested that Friedlander should sell the property "by auction, and he (witness) agreed. At the interview with Mr Friecllander Allen said that he had paid the'deposit on the purchase from Gait. , No conversation relating to the condition of disposing of the Dromore land, such as had been related, had taken pfebee in Friedlander's office in his presence. The property was put up, but no part of it was sold- He had suggest- , ed to Allen that the cheque for the depcssit ishoilild' be pqstdated, but Allen had replied that he would prefer that witness should keep it tfor a time before presenting it. After the attempted auction sale it Was agreed that he and ; Friedlpnder Bros; should still act in un attempt to sell the, property. On April 8 he received telegrams from Allen staging tliat his' Drompre property was withdrawn from sale: and. {that the agreement with Gait was cancelled and the Mataara :pr.<iperty was «*ff the market. Allen saw him later on and asked him what commission he was going to 1 charge.' He told Allen he would charge the full (Commission, aaQ Allen then said if that were done "he, vwould help . Gait to fight witness. The cheque for the deposit was presented at the Ashi burton 'branch- of the bank and dishonored. : To Mr Wilding: Before -the auction one of the Ffitsllanders toM 'him that if the Dromore property was not sold they would finance Allen. Before that (be (witness) told Allen that he should be abje to finance the properties. The arrangement was that he should present Allen's cheque after a few_days, for f Allen told him he had not sufficient ; funds at the bank at the time to meet i 'the cheque. He --agreed to bold the ' 'cheque for a few "days i , John White Bradley,, land salesman I for Spiers . am( Wilson, gnve evidence I'that he had not guaranteed the sale <•' ; the Dromore property in 24 hours. Al - lien told him he was pretty confident that his neighbors -would buy the land, and lie (witness) said'he did not anticipate that there would "bo any difficulty vh getting rid of tbe'iand. Allen certainly understood that 'he had to pay the deposit of £684 on March 10 and the balance on April 20. He said nothing about being unable' to find '"he money. After the agreement had been received from Gait for the sale of tinMataura. property Allen -put- his Dromon property in the■ fenlls of WilFon for sftle. Allen had ' made no stipulaticri whatever regarding fbe sale of hi? Dromore land before he "bought Gait's oroperfcy. , To Mr Wilding: It ttp.- -understood that the Dromore property svas to ho cold befote April 20. His Honor put'the following "-issues vo the jury: (1) Was the cheque 'for £332 delivered by-the-defendant to the plaintiff -on condition that it should -not- bo presented for payment until. afUar the defendant's farm at-Dromore was sold? (2) Did Bradley -represent- to the t'k-fen-•daat that the pln'intjff had buyers for the defendant's farm? (3) T'ld 1 th-"* plaintiff- represent to -the defen-.1-Kiit that'lie had purchasers.- ready to buy tisc said' farm ? (4) If the said representations were made, were they made tor j the purpose- of inducing the dc'i sndsmt; to'agree to the purchase o2 : Gait's farm.?; (5) Did the defendant rely -on these representations? (6) Were Ihe said re-, presentations untrue? His Honor, in summing up, said th.it if the jury found for the defendant they 1 would only deny the right of the plaintiff to recover the- money in respect ithe dishonored cheque, and that#would not affect the plaintiff's right to recover the whole of the amount advanced by the plaintiff to the defendant for the purposes of a deposit. After a short retirement the jury answered each issue in the affirmative. Mr Wilding moved for judgment < j or the defendant. Mr Don gall applied that judgment should be reserved until he had an opportunity of moving that judgment should be entered for the plaintiff. His Honor said that he would enter up judgment for the defendant, with costs as per scale, arid disbursements and witnesses expenses to be fixed by the Registrar. The sum of £lO 10s was

allowed for the second day, and £5 ?s for an interlocutory ortier giving lea re to defend. Leave was reserved to the plaintiff to move for judgment ■within fourteen days, and a stay of exeautiin was grarik-d for that period.