DEAL IN PROPERTY

Northern Advocate, 25 April 1921, Page 3

DEAL IN PROPERTY

I SOME UNUSUAL FEATURES. HOUSING DEPARTMENT MISTAKES. WELLINGTON, This Day. The civil action wherein Susan Alice Hopio, wife of Robert Hosie, of Painprtr.uinui, settlor (Sir Kenneth Doiiirl: 1 .•;) nought possession of hind and premises ai No. G(>, Lemuel street, Wellington, together with mesne profit.'?, h:ii; been advanced n further stage, hi-; Honour Mr Justice Reed giving an informal judgment. The facta of the case nro that the defendant, David Stone, oi Wellington, gardener, desired lo purchase n house, and needing assistance, approached the Housing Board, vhieh decided to recommend the purchase of the plnlntiff's house the sum of £775, conditional on Stone paying a deposit of £150. The defendant entered into possession, and afterwards it transpired that the Minister had approved of the purchase at the sum of £750. It was over the ndditional £25 that the trouble occurred. "PLAINTIFF ENTITLED TO JUDGMENT.''

His Honour Mr Justicc Reed said that it appeared endeavours had been made to induce the plaintiff to agree to the reduced amount. The defendant demos 11] at lie arranged with any land agents to pay the sum of £25 to the plaintiff. It is unnecessary for me to decide whether he did or did not, suffice it to say that t»he plaintiff believed that defendant had agreed to pay the extra £25,- and in that, belief notified the department that she had agreed to -accept, the sum authorised. From that time onward the defendant took up the position tttat he would not authorise the department to pay, nor would be himself pay, the additional £2". In order to endeavour to get over the difficulty the .board recommended the Minister to pay the additional £i!i), of course, adding it to the amount to be eventually paid by the defendant, but although the Minister agreed, the defendant would not consent. The defence filed: 'That if he ie in possession of the said premises as alleged, he is in lawful occupation, and in accordance with the provisions of the Housing Act, 1919,' is no defence. The result is that defendant is in possession of these premise without any title whatsoever, and plaintiff is entitled to judgment. It has, however, been represented to me that the plaintiff has no wish to dispossess . the de-__ fondant, and both counsel have therefore requested me to assess the amount that should properly be paid by the defendant to the plaintiff on the assumption that the purchase of the property will now be completed. lam agreeable to do so. I 'find,- as a fact, that the agreed price for the land was £775. The plaintiff is entitled to interest at S per cent, on that amount from February 5, 1920, to the date that. v she receives payment. The defendant must pay costs to the plaintiff, which I assess at thirty guineas and disburse-; r.ient and witnesses' expenses sto>iKT ascertained by the Registrar. TSic of the moneys payable by the defendant to tho plaintiff and of the costs is done at the re-. j quest of counsel, and in no sense a I judgment in the; action."

ERRORS BY DEPARTMENTAL OFFICER. In dealing with the evidence, Mr JusVieo Rood said that three errors had been made by an officer of the Housing Department. He classified the errors as follows:—(1) In notifying both plaintifr ond defendant that the department had recommended the Minister to purchase the ■ property at the plaintiff's prico, £775, whereas, as a matter of fact,- the recommendation had been for £750; (2) in authorising Mic. dofeudant to forthwith go into possession, implying- that the carrying out of the recommendation to purchase a I £775 was assured; (?>) when it Avas discovered that an error had been made* with regard to the recommendation to iho Minister, in advising the dofeuto disregard the request of the plaintiff's agents to agree to the personal'payment by the defendant of the difference cf £25. His Hovour added: "It is only fair to say that errors (2) tr.ul (4) were caused by the zeal of the officer in question to do the best he t;i!uld in the interests of the department's client; the defendant." The coso has been adjourned sine die, V.ith liberty to either party to apply ff,r a formal judgment.