MAGISTRATE'S COURT.

New Zealand Herald, Volume LIII, Issue 16375, 1 November 1916, Page 5

MAGISTRATE'S COURT.

■ m LAND SALE DISPUTE. PARTIES AT CROSS PURPOSES. An action arising out of a property deal came up for hearing at the Magistrate's Court yesterday, before Mr. C. C. Kettle, \ S.M. The plaintiff, Jasper William Brown (Mr. Noumegen), claimed from Jessie Mary Mehaffy the sum of £58 103. being two quarters' interest, or a portion of the purchase money owing by the defendant to the plaintiff under an agreement for the sale and purchase of part of allotments 31, 32, 34 and 40, Parish oi Karaka. Albert Edward Dewar, a land agent, said he sold a piece of land belonging to plaintiff to Mrs, Mehai". in January, 1915. He produced the agreement, showing that the price of the land was £9 per acre. Two sums of £300 had been paid, and it was arranged that the balance of £23-ni should bear interest at 5 per cent., payable quarterly. The area mentioned in the agreement was 326 acres, more or less. The defer. was not represented by counsel. Her husband appeared for her, and said that the reason she had declined to pay the interest was because she had found that the acreage mentioned in the I agreement was incorrect. She had asked ] for an adjustment, but this had not been \ granted. The Magistrate : This Court has no I jurisdiction to rectify the agreement. It I is a matter for the Supreme Court to deal -with. Defendant's Husband : I am entitled to get the land that I buy. I have asked for an adjustment, but they have only laughed at me. The Magistrate : But Mrs. Mehaffy has agreed to pay 5 per cent, on the balance of the purchase money, and the only matter that concerns this Court is whether the interest has been paid under the agreement or not. I suggest that the case should stand over until a survey has been made, so that the accuracy or otherwise of the area mentioned in the agreement may be ascertained. | -Mr. Noumegen : I must object to this ' course. It is no concern of this Court whether the area is right or wrong. It is suspected that the area is incorrect to the extent of about three acres, but the defendant has been promised an adjustment when she receives the title. The defendant's husband proceeded to ' cross-examine the first witness for the 1 plaintiff in regard to the area of the land purchased. The magistrate interrupted and said ne could not allow the time of the Court to be wasted. According to the agreement [ the money was owing by the defendant ; to the plaintiff. % ] "But I have been refused an adjust- ' ment," urged the defendant The Magistrate : If you object to the 1 agreement you will have to go to the I Supreme Court and get It set aside. I • would suggest that you get a solicitor to advise you about the position. 1 After some further discussion Mr. Kettle adjourned the case for a fortnight to > enable the parties to come to some .>rrangement He intimated that if none was arrived at he would give judgment for the plaintiff. > UNDEFENDED CASES. Judgment by default for the amount ', claimed, with costs, was given for the ' plaintiff in each of the following unde- ' fended cases at the Magistrate's Court yesterday, by Mr. C. C. Kettle, S.M. : — C. Schrafft v. M. Marks, Eden Terrace, 13s; Guardian Trust and Executors Co., Ltd., v. Phillip Sparnon, Grey Lynn' £1 lis Id F. G. Bridges v. W. Elwin, Fort Street, £2; Winstone, Ltd., v. R. Castle, Newton, £1 0s Id ; R. Harris v. . F. M. Copeland, B.ingsland, £1 2s 6d ; ! Ballin and Russell, v. J. Campbell, Mount ' Eden, £3; G. Court and Sons, v. A. M. ' Robinson, Ohakune, £1 18s Id; B. J. Walker v. H. Wickham, Avondale, £19 ss; W. R. Peachey v. H. Crawford, Parnell. £7 2s 7d ; W. Crosher and Sons v. C. Zainey a-id Co. Te Kuiti, 15s Id ; Ah Chee v. C. Lawrence, Parnell, £4 2s 3d; Wilson and Horton v. F. - Stephens, Te Papapa, £7 17s 5d ; Dingo 9 Medicine Co., Ltd, v. A. E. Wilton, Mar- : tinborongh, £7 4b ; R. Harris v. W. Ten--1 kinson, Alexander Street, 10s 9d ; W. H. ' Clarke v. James Kerr, Newmarket, 3 £1 5s 9d : W. H. Clarke v. E. Peters, I Epsom, 14s 9d ; F. Shelton v. D. Lovez lock, Papakura, £1 13s; Dalgety and Co., 5 Ltd. v. F. Morlev, Otorohanga, £8 3s; '" F. C. Graham v. T. F. Nichols, Auckland r; £14 10s; Jagger and Harvey v. United I Timber Co., Ltd., Mercer, £11 19s Bd. Q