MAGISTRATE'S COURT.

New Zealand Herald, Volume LI, Issue 15554, 11 March 1914, Page 7

MAGISTRATE'S COURT.

A LAND TRANSACTION.

PLAINTIFF'S CLAIM FAILS.

A land transaction resulted in the bringing before Mr. C. C. Kettle, S.M., at the Magistrate's Court yesterday of a case in which Alfred Adams, Auckland, sued Richard Starke, B«mueTa, for the refunding of a deposit of £20, and £5 damages, in respect of expenses incurred. The property which was the subject of the dispute is situated at Omaiu Bay, Waiheke.

Alfred Adams said he entered into an agreement, dated December 17, to buy a piece of land from defendant, who had a farm at Waiheke Island. Defendant said he wanted £100 for the land, part of which he described as being the side of a hill and the rest level land. He said the timber was worth £40, and that there was sufficient room on the land for two other cottages. Witness paid a deposit of £20 on the property, and defendant gave him a receipt. There was an arra-igement to pay the balance by June, 1915, by instalments. Up to the time of the agreement he had not seen the property otherwise he would not have purchased it. The land was. insufficient to allow of the building of two more houses with frontage to the teach. If he had seen the land he would not have given £5 for it. The opinion of two land agents, called in support of the plaintiff's evidence, was that £100 was an excessive value to put on the land, which was mostly cliff. Their estimates of its value ranged from £20 to £40. -

The defence was a denial of misrepresentation of the nature of the property, Starke affirming that plaintiff was given an opportunity of going to inspect the property, but declined to avail himself of it. His Worship said he was not satisfied that such representations were made to plaintiff by defendant as to induce the former to buy the land, or, in fact, that any representations were made to him at all. From the evidence it appeared that plaintiff was very anxious to get a piece of land down at Waiheke, and rather than go to the expense of £1 or 30s in getting a launch and going down to see the land— a course which was suggested to him by defendant— preferred to go by his own recollection of the place, in his anxiety to get the property. A man who wanted to take advantage of another in a land deal would not be likely to offer the prospective buyer an opportunity of \ iewing it in the way defendant did. Plaintiff would bo nonsuited. QUESTION OF TITLE. A claim for £125 damages for failure to deliver a billiard-table and other chattels within three weeks of the purchase of a house came before Mr. Kettle, the plaintiff being Mrs. Eliza E. Pernell, and the defendant, Mrs. Lena Godley (Oratia). Mr. C. Z. Clayton appeared for, plaintiff and Mr. Hohnden for defendant. The evidence for the plaintiff was to the effect that plaintiff had arranged for the purchase of a house at Avondale in the form of an exchange. The purchase price of the property was £1200, and the chattels in question were represented to Mr. Pernell (husband of the plaintiff, and a land agent) to be worth between £300 and £400. It now appeared, however, that the title to the chattels did not accompany the sale, and when the property was subsequently transferred to a Mr. Myer, plaintiff had to compensate him for the chattels. The mm of £125 represented the loss to the plaintiff through failure to give a title to those chattels. The compensation paid to Mr. Myer was £100 the balance of £25 in the claim for "damages represented lawcost* and loss of time on the part of Mr. Pernell (husband of the plaintiff). After hearing the evidence for the defence. His Worship gave judgment for plaintiff for £100. and granted leave to the plaintiff's solicitor to pro'ive leal authorities in support of his argument, that he was entitled to the balance of £25. in respect of costs incurred in the matter.