HOTEL LEASE CASE

Marlborough Express, Volume XLIX, Issue 181, 3 August 1915, Page 3

HOTEL LEASE CASE

1 THE SUPREME COURT JUDGMENT. The judgment delivered by Mr Justice Chapman in the case of A. IC. Hardcastle v. J. Falconer, in which the plaintiff sued for specific performance of an agreement to sell the lease and goodwill of the Club Hotel, Blenheim, is of considerable length. His Honor remarked that the evidence was very contradictory. .In fact, with respect to what occurred , 0:1 two or three critical occasions, the , ivitnosses flatly contradicted each j other. Concerning the option drawn ' up by .Mr Yickers in favor of Mr j ifai'dcastle, His Honor said: "What- j ever may be the truth concerning this ; optiou, it seems certain that Falconer I acted on the assumption that it did j not operate so long as the matter was ; in Corry's hands. . . . Regarding ; the visit to JVlr Corry's office, the j judgment proceeds as follows:— ! "From a business point of view there : was not the slightest reason why ( Hardcastle, Mrs Piardcastle, or even • Vir'cers should go and sera man with s whom they had no business relations ! whatever. The?-o was a reason why Falconer should go, and, if his story j

is true, there whs a reason why all the others should go, r.s they w'cro still to ascertain whether Corry had sold I and could Poll the hotel in the half j hour that remained ui> to one o'clock. Falconer says that this accounts for their all going together. There is again a dispute as to what was said j when they got there The I' extraordinary thing about this part of the .story is that when Corry expressed himself as sceptical about the alleged option or written document evidencing a rale, and asked b.; have it j shown to him, lie was sent by Vickers j to Murray and Co.'s office i\; • this , purpose. Vickers first went H:n.self <to the office and saw a member or •' clerk of the firm, ostensibly to obtain I leave to show it to Corry. In fact, | he. advised that person to refuse him | that permission, and returned and rej ported this refusal to the parties in j Cony's office. Corry then went to j Murray >'md Co.'s office, and, aeeorci- | ing to Falconer, said on his return ; that they had refused to show it to ! him. Corry goes further, and says J that when he saw the gentleman to J whom Vickers had given the advice ' [mentioned the gentleman said: 'It was in the- safe and Murray had the keys and ho could not show it to me.' j The gentleman in question was not called as a 'witness. Whether this. I was said or not, some care was taken Ito misled Corry. Vickers says now \ that he. could not without his principal's permission show the private papers to a rival commission agent; but Falconer and Hardcastle had, tacitly at least, consented to his seeing the document, and Corry's request was a bona- fide one. Besides, there need havjp been no difficulty in refining r,n the ground put forward by Vick?rs to show them. . . . it explains a good deal of the attitude of both Falconer and Corry to bear in mind that,' 1 bough Falconer considered that he had given ■ Corry an option, he felt pretty certain that no sale would ensue, and that it was only necessary for him to keep matters in suspense for an hour or so when the sale to Hardcastle would proceed. . . Corry. . . . probably brought See-Hard up.to the point by telling him:, that Vickers had brought a buyer over. Even drinking a bottle' of wine, which is usually regarded as the closing,, note of a transaction, is explained by* Falconer on the ground that he felt nearly certain that Corry would not find n'purchaser, and was thus able to wish Hardcastle 'food luck.' "

of Frauds or a defence calling upon the Court to set aside anything, is sufficiently raised by the pleadings, and that the pleadings a.s they .stand have resulted in all the facts being brought before me which- could have been "introduced info, the elucidation of the matters in. controversy. For these reasons F. hnkl that judgment must be for the defendant. Judgment for the defendant with costs a*; ]>?i- scale as if £'800 were in dispute, with Avitnesses' expenses and disbursements to be settled by the Registrar. A second day is allowed at £10 10s.'' I