PURCHASING A FARM.

New Zealand Herald, Volume L, Issue 15308, 22 May 1913, Page 5

PURCHASING A FARM.

HITCH IN NEGOTIATIONS.

SPECIFIC PERFORMANCE SOUGHT. ' AN UNUSUAL CASE. A case presenting some unusual features came before His Honor Mr. Justice Edwards yesterday afternoon, when Donald Ewen Morrison claimed ' from John Thomas Stembridge specific performance of a contract for the sale of a farm at Hunua, or, in. default of that, £500 damages and £253 damages . for loss sustained in consequence. Mr. J. R. Reed, K.C., with him Mr. W. A. Black, appeared for the plaintiff, and the defendant was represented by Mr. McVeagh, with whom Mr. Bagnall appeared.

Mr. Reed, in opening his case, said that the action was one brought by the purchaser and not by the vendor. The plaintiff had noticed an advertisement stating that the property in question would be sold by Messrs. Buckland and Sons, and on December 10 last he attended the sale, and was the only bidder for the property. His bid did not reach the reserve price, but next day a private contract was entered into between him and the vendor, through Mr. Brookes, auctioneer for Messrs. Buckland and Sons. By this contract the plaintiff was to purchase the farm for £700, the conditions being that he should pay £50 deposit, £350 within 30 days, and the balance of £300 was to be on mortgage at 6 per cent. Plaintiff gave Mr. Brookes a cheque for £50, in the presence of the defendant. At the time he had only £15 in the bank, but knew that over £300 would bo paid into his account within two or three days, and he stated that the cheque could be cashed then. A few minutes later, however, he remembered that he had two cheques on other accounts in his possession, one for £32 and one for £17 18s 6d. He went back to Mr.' Brookes, and gave him these two cheques, stating that there was some £4 to his credit with Buckland and Sons and the balance (Is 6d) could be taken out of that. Unfortunately, the plaintiff forgot to get his own cheque back, and as Mr. Brookes was in a hurry at the time, he evidently forgot to give the accountant at Buckland and Sons full instructions. All three cheques were given to the accountant, and when they were presented at the bank the cheque for £50 was dishonoured.. The deposit, however, was covered by the other cheques, and over £300 was paid into plaintiff's account at the bank a few days later, as he had said it would be. On December 30, in compliance with the terms of the contract, he paid over the £350 balance of the nurchase-money, getting a receipt from Buckland and Sons for the whole of the money he had naid. The plaintiff, continued Mr. Reed, had thus done all he could do, but the troublo lay in the fact that' there was some personal feeling between the two parties, and the vendor was not particularly anxious to sell in the first place. When the cheque was dishonoured, the defendant, without making any material inquiries, - repudiated the contract. The plaintiff did not know that his cheque had been dishonoured until December 24. He immediately wrotei to Mr. Brookes, and received a reply that the sale was in order, and that Stembridge had been informed to that effect. The nlaintiff was now claiming for the specific performance of the contract. The claim for damages, concluded Mr. Reed, arose through the fact that since the signing of the contract the defendant had completely neglected the farm. It had been agreed that he should cut for him-; self five acres of oats out of a paddock of 20 acres. He, however, cut the whole lot, for which a claim was included in the claim for damages. Instead of ploughing that land and putting it in grass, as every good farmer would do, the defendant neglected it, and allowed the stubble to remain in it and weeds to overrun it. with the rosult that should the plaintiff gain possession of the farm, that ground would be quite useless until next year. The nlaintiff was therefore claiming £153 for the loss of the crops and £100_ for the loss sustained through his not having possession of the property. The plaintiff gave evidence on the lines of his counsel's opening address, and the Court then adjourned until 10 a.m. today. ■.