LITIGATION OVER HOTEL PROPERTY

Manawatu Times, Volume LIV, Issue 6921, 29 May 1929, Page 8

LITIGATION OVER HOTEL PROPERTY

Claim for Specific Performance

DEPENDANT ALLEGES MISREPRESENTATION

Per Press Association. WELLINGTON, Last Night. An action for specific performanci concerning the sale of Andrews’ Hotel Dannevirke, has been partly heard 11 t..e .Supreme Court before Mr. Justice Biair. Harry Edward Andrews, surgeor dentist, Wellington, and the Public Trustee, executor of the late Sydney Andrews, of Dannevirke, are plaintiff and defendant i 3 Mark Green, draper, of Wellington. Mr. H. E. Johnston, with him Mr. H. H. Cornish are appearing for plaintiffs and Mr. P. S. K. Macassey, with him Mr. W. L. Eothenburg, for defendant. Cause of Action. The statement of claim sets out that Harry Edward Andrews and his late brother were the owners of the hotel on January 31, 1928, when it was alleged that defendant, by agreement in writing, agreed to purchase the property. Plaintiffs were willing to complete the contract but it was alleged that defendant had refused to carry it out. On December 28, 1928, plaintiffs had agreed to grant defendant an option to purchase for £45,500, subject to a mortgage of £14,700. By this agreement £IOOO was to be paid to the plaintiffs’ agents by Harrison and Co., Ltd. When the option was exercised plaintiffs were to buy from Mark Green, Ltd., the property known as Goodwin’s Buildings, Cuba street, for £28,000. Later on in the same day defendant, it was alleged, exercised his orition but had refused to pay the £IOOO. A claim was made for specific performance of the contract or alternatively plaintiffs claimed £2OOO damages for breaeh of contract or £2OOO damages for loss sustained through alleged misrepresentation by tho defendant that he had the authority of Mark Green, Ltd., to sell the Cuba street property. Defendant denied that he had contracted to purchase tho property on January 31, 1928, or had exercised his option. Ho alleged that the memorandum relating to the exercise of the option was dictated by a man named Hopkins, as representative of plaintiffs ’ agents, who falsely represented to him that it was necessary to keep the option in force in case Sydney Andrews, then seriously ill, died beforo it expired. It was further alleged that defendant had repeatedly refused to sign the document but was finally induced to sign. Sydney Andrews did not die before the option had expired and defendant made many efforts to have plaintiffs’ agent, Hopkins, return the document to him and directed the latter not to use it, but without success. Defendant further alleged that when he was advised that the signing of tho document might be held to bo an exercise of the option, he took all reasonable steps to repudiate tho document.

For a further defence, the defendant contended that the contract to purchase —which he denied—was entered into on tho misrepresentation of Hopkins, and was therefore, null and void. It was also claimed to be null and void on account of alleged misrepresentations that the property had never been on the market before, that the weekly takings were yielding a clear net profit of £175, and that a tenant was available to take a lease for seven years at £IOO a week. Finally, defendant claimed that at no time was he authorised to sell or exchange the Cuba street property, which fact the plaintiffs knew, or ought to have known. A counter-claim was made for the rescission of any contract tho defendant might be held to have entered into.

Hearing of Evidence, In evidence, Harry Andrews said that his brother’s price was £50,000. Green offered £45,000, and on January 31„ 1928, offered an additional £SOO, which witness and his sister-in-law persuaded Sydney Andrews to accept.' Witness said he was willing at the: present time to complete the contract.' Iz was practically impossible for his sister-in-law to carry on at tho hotel, and in order to bo relieved of the re- i eponsibility, the plaintiffs might possibly have to accept considerably less that the original price. When Green was told that'his offer was accepted,' he sat down and wrote out the whole thing. Witness denied having told Green that the place had never been on the market beforo. He had told him that his brother’s illness prevented them carrying on. Amy Isabel Andrews, widow of Sydney Andrews, said she met defendant at the hotel on January 1, 1929. She did not know on what terns Green had bought tho property. Allan Hopkins, member of the firm of G. Harrison and Co., Ltd., produced an authority to sell the hotel on behalf of tho plaintiffs. Witness detailed the progress of negotiations between tho parties, and stated that on January 14, Green asked him to tear up the exercise of option so that a fiesh start could bo made with the whole matter. He refused to do so. He did not remember having told Green that the net profits were £175 a week, and that he (witness) was prepared to engage a tenant at a rental of £IOO a week. | Witness said that Green had insisted upon a deposit of £IOOO being stipit-J lated in the option. He had previously seen the agreement by which witness, was to receive £IOOO commission. j

To Mr Macassey, witness denied! having told Green in Wellington on 1 Christmas Day that if he signed the! option witness would secure a tenant almost immediately for a seven years’, lease of the hotel. Witness did not advise him that if Sydney Andrews died before the option was signed, it vvotsld be valueless, Regarding a eon*

versation in January, witness denied that the defendant said lie had not bought the hotel and had no right to give an authority to lease . Witness said that he had given a paragraph relating to the sale of the hotel to a reporter. He did not remember telling the reporter to keep the source of information absolutely private, but would not contradict evidence to that effoet. The hearing is proceeding.