DISPUTED PROPERTY DEAL.

New Zealand Herald, Volume LV, Issue 16978, 11 October 1918, Page 7

DISPUTED PROPERTY DEAL.

, . ,'*. —;rr>: ' -V, ALLEGED : BREACH OF AGREEMENT. An action to enforce specific performance of an agreement" t<» purchase land was heard by Mr. ''■■ Justice Hoslgng in the Supreme Court yesterday. Walter -J. Rowsell, farmer, Okaibau i (Mr.' A. E. Skeiton) proceeding, against Walter Riddell, farmer, Auckland .(Mr. Rpe'd,, K.C., with .him Mr. -Anderson). Plaintiff, claimed £250- damages, for ' alleged, delay and; ex-penses,-and, in the alternative, £500. damages for alleged breach of;the agreement._ : The statement of claim stated• that on May 15 last an agreement was .made ;by which .defendant agreed, to purchase', plain-, tiff' interest of. a lease, with a purchasing clause, of, 463 acres in "Block No. v ?B,. Omapere, together with' sJiearing-machine and engine and plaintiff's .rights to 47 acres of Crown land' adjoining the other property.' The eum off £2720 was -to be paid by defendant by June ,20. Defendant refused to carry out "the agreement, which he repudiated by telegram oh. June 22, and by. letter from his .solicitors refused to be any longer' bound, and. gave notice 'that he would not 1 perform the agreement. ■"" ' y • '■'. ','' ,'? The defence- alleged that the agreement. wis induced by misrepresentation. on the part of the plaintiff, to the effect that the land "was-- under. the Land .Transfer Act. whereas, it was held under grant. It was submitted that plaintiff had not 'oh July 2,1918,. nor had he now, such a,title as. the defendant could be 'compeled -to accept in terms of the agreement. ;. A considerable amount of evidence was. heard, - and, the case was ■ unfinished when the Court lose (pr the day. '~ ■$