DISPUTE OVER A HOUSE.

New Zealand Herald, Volume LI, Issue 15613, 20 May 1914, Page 7

DISPUTE OVER A HOUSE.

QUESTION OF DEPOSIT.

Judgment was |{iven at the Magistrate's Court yesterday by Mr. E. Page, S.M.,' in the case in which. A. J. Watson (Mr. Biernacki) sought to recover from Mrs. Harvey (Mr. Mulgau) the sum of £50, paid as a deposit on account of the purchase of ■ defendant's property at Avondale. The price of the property was £1100, and the'balance of the purchase money was to be paid as follows:—£600 cash, and an existing mortgage of £450 at a rate of interest of 5£ per cent, to be taken over.

Plaintiff's counsel raised two grounds on which he claimed to be entitled to judgment, las first was that there had been misrepresentation as to the mortgage to be takdu over, namely, that the rate of interest was represented to be per cent., and that plaintiff was unable to arrange for its ranewal at less than 6£ per cent. The second ground was that the written memorandum was not sufficient to satisfy the Statute of Frauds. Mr. Page, i\x his written judgment, stated that he could find no evidence of misrepresentation. The mortgage was represented to be for a sum of £450 at 5 per cent., and 'these representations were, according to plaintiff's own evidence, true. There was no evidence offered by plaintiff at the hearing 1o show the date on which tho existing mortgage was repayable. The mortgage was. not produced. Regarding the second ground, he was not satisfied that the description was insufficient to comply with the Statute of Frauds. The money was paid with full knowledge of facts. Since the contract, until its repudiation, the plaintiff so acted as to induce the defendant to draw the reasonable inference (and to act upon such inference) that a completed contract existed. The defendant was always ready and willing to complete. The plaintiff was nonsuited.