SALE OF AN HOTEL.

Manawatu Times, Volume XLVI, Issue 2646, 15 May 1923, Page 6

SALE OF AN HOTEL.

FALSE REPPRESENTATION ALLEGED. I Before His Honour Sir John Salmond at the Supreme Court yesterday, John Brandon, Rangiwahia, hotelkeeper, claimed £650 damages from Charles C. Deihl, farmer, of Hamilton, in respect of an alleged false representation of the takings of an hotel which plaintiff bought from defendant. Mr Ongley appeared for plaintiff and Mr Cooper for defendant. The f. had previously been heard, when the jury failed t'o agree. The following jury was empanelled: P. C. O'Connor (foreman), W. B. Cameron, R. H. Eyre, P. G. Mildon, A. H. Mansford, John Davidson, R. Lloyd, A. Honore, G. Mcllroy, J. A. Cooksley, A. Akers, and J. Young

It was sot forth in plaintiff's statemen of claim that in August, 1921, by an agreement, in writing, the defendant agreed to sell to plaintiff certain freehold and leasehold premises at Rangiwahia, whereon is situate the Rangiwahia Hotel, together' with all furniture, plant and effects, in and about the said hotel (with the exception of personal effects and consumable stock) for £4,500, that the deal had been completed, that prior to making the agreement defendant by his agent, Carter Bowles, of Opitiki, land agent, represented to plaintiff that his average takings at the hotel for the past 12 months had been £SO per week, that' the representation was false, and was made to induce, and did induce the plaintiff to enter the said agreement.

Defendant, in his statement', admitted the proceeding's leading ufp to the deal, but denied that he, or any person acting: as his agent, with his authority, ever represented that his average for the 12 months referred to or for any other period, had been £SO per week, or any other sum, but' alternatively if this allegation was held to be true, the statement was, to the best of his ability, an honest estimate of his takings. Defendant also denied that it was material representation or made for the purpose of inducing the plaintiff to purchase the hotel. Evidence on affidavit by A. J. Whitaker, and H. C. Bowles was produced deposing that they had been engaged as land agents, in the negotiations for the sale of hotel, but had none of the documents or in reference to it. After it had been read, His Honour remarked: "I hope the rest of the evidence is more illuminating, Mr Onglcy." Mr Ongley: "I hope so too, Your Honour. I will call Robert Pratt."

Robert Pratt, land agent, of Pending, said that he had obtained instructions from "Whittakcr and Co., of Auckland, regarding the sale of the hotel. The price was £4,500 and the takings were given by Mr Deihl as £SO per week. Mr Deihl had filled in a form which witness gave him. To Mr Cooper: This was a year before the sale took place. Edward Robert Bridge gave details Of various stock transactions whicn his firm had carried out with defendant.

John Joseph Price, of Hinau, and Edmund Hugh Haythorne, of jtlimbolton, farmers, gave similar evidence. Plaintiff, in evidence, said he was formerly a farmer at Opotiki. He approached Mr Bowles in regard to purchasing an hotel, and was shown a list containing an advertisement of the Kangiwahia hotel. Witness asked Mr Bowles to get full particu'ars, and the latter reecived letter from Messrs Whittaker and Co., which witness saw, stating that the takings were £SO per week. Mr Bowles wrote to defendant, giving particulars of plaintiff's farm, which defendant inspected, with a view to an' excnange. At an interview in Mr Bowles' office, defendant represented the takings, as £SO per week. On July 3, thsy went through the hotel and witness inspected the books, Defendant showed witness a record of his takings giving the first year's (1013) at £1,«00 and the last yj-ar's as £2GOO. Witness worked the takings out at £52, to which defendant said: "That's more than I told you." Defendant, on being asked by witness for his ir.voices, could only find one. Defendant also told witness that he was carrying stock to the value of £3OO. He refused to take £4OOO for the hotel, saying he did not want to lose on it. The sale was eventually effected and -witness took possession. The stock, on being valued, was taken over at £lO-. His first day's takings were only £1 13/, of which defendant spent £l. The first week's takings were £25. W:tness produced his books to show that his takings had averaged £3O in the bar and £6 in the house. His sales o: bar stock had amounted to £BIB for the twelve months, and his bar takings were £1607 13/.

At this stage, His Honour adjourned the hearing until 10 o'clock this morning.