PROPERTY DISPUTE.

New Zealand Herald, Volume LXI, Issue 18827, 30 September 1924, Page 9

PROPERTY DISPUTE.

, _—«» . , % AN OFFER WOT ACCEPTED. EXTENDED CAVEAT REFUSED'. I PLAINTIFF'S TWOFOLD PLEA. | An application in regard to a disputed property transaction was heard by Mr. Justice':' Herdman in the Supremo ~ Court yesterday. Maurice Tangney, ; who appeared in person and f described ; himself as a';. financier, asked ') for an extension of a caveat ho had lodged against the title of a property, known as 8, Rennall Street, ; Ponsonby. + He contended that he bad, by paying a deposit and occupying; the house, acquired possession, -and, the caveat was lodged to prevent the vendor, Mary Buckler (Mr. Fitzherbert), disposing of. theproperty to ; v the - defendants, Frederick George Rackham. and ■' Charles; Simpson. Mr. Hogg represented .the defendants, who, with the vendor, opposed the application... - . ',

Plaintiff, in evidence,; stated that in April last ho inspected the property and made an offer of £750, which was £100 less than tho advertised price. He contended that his offer was accepted and ho paid the agent £25, on account of the £50: deposit ,■•;■ required. .: He sigh an agreement, but ; did not ask for. a copy. Plaintiff produced a receipt ,;.from:.■ , , the agent for' the £25. The agent told him where to get the keys, and these he obtained a few . days later. He took it that tho sale was in order.

■ Mr. Hogg said )9 he had .the/ original agreement. There was never any acceptance of plaintiff's offer.

Mr. Fitzherbert also said there had been no acceptance. , .

■['■'. Plaintiff said the agent told .'him 'his offer was accepted. Had it not been accepted he would; not have paid the £25. He ; had been in - possession two ; months. If there were no sale he .V should : have been notified and his deposit returned. His Honor told plaintiff ; ho should look to the agent for the return of the deposit. Mr. Hogg said there was no offer in writing. '. The only document signed by the agent was the receipt, and that was not sufficient to satisfy the statute. : ; Even if it Were, the agent was " not authorised to sell 'at £750. ■ :■• • ''';„>

Mr.' Pitzherbert said that his client, who "was an invalid, had authorised her eldest daughter to sell ■.;:; the ; property. Plaintiff's offer was rejected, as the terms were ridiculous: ; Plaintiff ~ went to the daughter's office, and found she was in Wellington. 'He produced the receipt for the £25 and after telegrams had passed, the girl in the office handed him the kejfc. His "Honor v asked ; ; r on; what: ground, he suggested ; the caveat ; should be extended. I Plaintiff :. On i. the/ ground 5; that it >■ was a sale and must be treated as a sale. v. His Honor Who is how in possession ?

Mr. Hogg: My clients., ; ' His Honor "; told '': plaintiff that he did not produce any contract to show he had a right :to , have , the !: caveat extended.;: There, was no acceptance by I;..vendor and no •• document signed ; by her. The agent could not ; sell . the property -j for anything less than*£Bso. i , Plaintiff ■,' told His 'Honor that he had had a somewhat '. similar case in { Wellington, and Mr. Justice Sim had then held it was a sale, as his deposit was accepted and ;he had had - possession \ for ? such a

time. ' ' . _. ~. His Honor ":■: If Mr. Justice ;■•: Sim; told you it -was a sale the circumstances mast have been very different. Have you got the keys ■by some misapprehension ? You are not going to! take v away ; this woman's property like this. It is ridiculous. ■.':•' ■ ■ '-.": ■ ■ ■■■: ;': j :i Plaintiff produced a bank 3 note, and said he had the whole of the money ; to complete, but the other side would; not: accept.-'' i i'';.:;.-. ' 3?. : ' : ' ; .3 : ■'- "■''■',■'.' ■•' : '":V'-v' ! .* : -» :; His Honor You ; had better keep it in your pocket. Is that all ? -3 ; Mr. Hogg; said he did not think it was necessairy to -waste'.' the ; Court's ■ time ;in cross-examining. It was';' so ; obvious there was nothing to answer. His Honor : told plaintiff . there 'were lots of other properties: he could buy; in Auckland for £750. ; He dismissed the application, allowing £22 costs to defendants and a like amount to the vendor.