HOUSE AT FOXTON IS SUBJECT OF LAW SUIT

Manawatu Times, Volume LV, Issue 7296, 5 August 1930, Page 2

HOUSE AT FOXTON IS SUBJECT OF LAW SUIT

Sale to Maori Woman A liou.se and section in Easton street, Foxfcon, was the subject of a law case which, came before the Hon. Mr Justice Blair in -the Palmerston North Supreme Court yesterday. Plaintiff was Mrs Catherine Woodroofe, of Poxton (M'r Cooper) who asked that Mrs Kornahi Renata (Mr Ongley), a Maori woman of Marotiri, 70 years of age, bo ordered to complete a,n agreement to purchase the house and laud. ' Plaintiff alleged in her statement of claim, that on January 21 her husband acting as her agent, sold the property to defendant for £350. A deposit of £l5O was paid and on January 27 Mrs Remain, entered into possession. However, on February 13 the latteT, in a letter to plaintiff's solicitors, tried to rescind the agreement, hence the need for legal proceedings. The defence was that the land was represented by Mr Woodroofe as his property and as he went bankrupt on October 31, 1925 his interest had passed to tho iD.O.A. Under tho agreement •repairs were to be made to the roof, porch and front gate and these had no.t been done. A further allegation was that Mr Woodroofe had misrepresented the house by stating that it was in good repair and sound whereas it was greatly affected by dry rot and borer which was not apparent on the first examination. Immediately this was discovered, however, defendant gave notice rescinding tho agreement. A further defence was that defendant was an illiterate Maori woman, 70 years of age, and it was inequitable that the agreement should be enforced. S. W. Rapley, solicitor, of Palmerston North, stated in evidence that the property was owned by Mr Woodroofo but after his bankruptcy, it was transferred to Mrs Woodroofe, the mortgagees (tho Starr Bowkett Building Society) consenting. It was understood Mrs Woodroofe was in possession of the place and that she could lift the title at any time upon making certain payments. To Mr Ongley: Tho Building Society had no written contract with Mrs Woodroofe to take up tho land. Mrs Woodroofe told Ms Honour that prior to her husband's bankruptcy he owned tho house and land. After his filing it was arranged that the property should be sold to her by the Building Society and she had been in possession ever since. She was aware of the negotiations to sell the place to defendant and witness added that she was present on two occasions when terms were discussed. She gave her husband authority to sign the agreement.

To Mr Ongley: At the time of the sale she thought the Building Society was the registered owners and did not know that it was her husband. She gave the latter authority to sell ’believing in the agreement with the Building Society. She did not sign the agreement to sell to defendant because, having given her husband authority to do so, thought that was sufficient. Mts Renata took possession towards the end of January for about ten days. George Thos. Woodroofe, said he conducted the negotiations for tho sale and ultimately signed the agreement on behalf of Ms wife who knew the terms of the sale. His Honour: Who told you to go and sign? Witness: My wife. His Honour: But you disobeyed her. You didn’t sign on her behalf at ail. You signed your own name with no mention of “on behalf of.” Witness: I didn’t give it a thought. In answer to Mr Cooper witness added that Airs Woodroofe was present when the terns of the sale were agreed upon. , To Mr Ongley: Ho didn’t know tho property was still in Ms name. Nor did he tell Mr Bexgi.ii, who drew up the agreement, that the property was not Ms and that he had come there to sign on Ms wife’s behalf. Nothing was mentioned about repairs to the roof or porch although tho gate was mentioned when he took defendant a load of furniture. They theu tried to find fault with the house. Witness denied that he shifted the washtubs from the place before Mrs Renata took possession; there were none there to take.

Air Ongley held that there were two main grounds of defence. Firstly, the plaintiff was a stranger to the arrangements altogether and could not sue raider its terms. It was a - case of agreement under ■tvhieh it was neeeS’sary to hold the title for a number of years. Secondly, the agreement was subject to the consent of the first mortgagee and subject to the existing mortgage being arranged to suit the terms of the agreement. Air Cooper maintained that the conditions had been complied with substantially by plaintiff. The matter had .been left in the hands of plaintiff’s solicitor but before the matter was completed defendant had notified her refusal to go ou with the contract. There was no question of plainttiff not being able to supply “the goods.” His Honour pointed out that the contract was not completed until Airs Renata took over shares in the Building Society. TMs had not been done and until this amount was paid; it could not be held that defendant was subject to the contract. Mr Cooper declared that the Building. Society could not withdraw and that if defendant cared to go on, by paying the money, she could compel tho society to complete the title. His Honour: All this is subject to a condition wMch was never fulfilled—the buying of the shares. It was a remarkable title, a mosaic one, and he very seriously doubted if the plaintiff had any right to bring an action. On this point, however, he would not express a definite opinion. Judgment would be for defendant os there were no grounds on wMch to sue as tire fulfilment'of the expressed conditions of the contract had not been made.