A STRANGE LAND CASE

New Zealand Times, Volume LXXI, Issue 4307, 16 March 1901, Page 3

A STRANGE LAND CASE

ELOCKTON v. LEONARD. In the Supremo Court yesterday, before Air Justice Cooper, g case v.ms heard between Johanna Flockton. wife of Henry Flockton, of Wellington settler, phnutilf and George Leonard, of Wellington, labourer, defendant. .Mr Gray appeared for the plaintiff, and Mr Will',ord (uetiug I'm Mr SkoiTctt), with, itim Air Cooper, for the defendant. Thin was a. claim for the specific performance of an agreement by which the defendant, contracted to sell to the plaintiff for £7OO, part of section No. 1,7-1, City of Wclii.’igijon, containing seven porches, in Dixon street. The statement of defence made certain (lenials ; said there was no. snflicion: ton tract or memorandum in writing or the terms of the alleged agreement to .satisfy the Statute of Frauds ; and as.

sorted that if there was any agreement:, then fcho defendant, when he made and executed the alleged agreement, mis, as the plaintiff then weT! knew, so drunk and was 'suffering from Ibo effects of drink to .such an extern that ho was nimble to comprehend the meaning or effect of the agreement. His Honor, after some preliminary aignmont, said he was of opinion that Dig. alh'gcd agreement satisfied the Statute of Frauds. He also held that parole evidence was admissible in order to enable the Court to- say what was the actual property that was meant by the contract.

Henry Flocld.cn, the plaintiff’s husband, deposed that the defendant was quite .sober when the agreement was made. Witness had never seen the defendant intoxicated. The defendant approached witness in regard to the sale. Dr.Mnpkin, whoso evidence had been taken before hie departure from the oollony cn a tour, said he knew the defendant, who was an old patient of his. On Sunday evening, the 28th January, lip remembered attending the defendant, who came to his surgery. The defendant was then suffering from acute alcoholism.;. Witness prescribed him a sleeping mixture. By acute alcoholism witness meant that the defendant had been on Ihe drink lately. He apparently had been drinking almost up to the time witness saw him. Witness again saw the defendant the next afternoon at his residence in Dixon street, between 4 and 5.30 o’clock. He was out in the back yard walking about, and presented all the symptoms and appearances of the previous evening, but in a. more aggravated form. Witness should say that on that day the defendant would bo practically unable to transact business. On Wednesday afternoon, between 2 and 4 o’clock, the defendant’s wife brought the defendant ho witness’s surgery). Thai defendant then presented, the s.anio appearance and symptoms os on Monday. Ho seemed to bo almost in delirium tremens. Wit nos® sent the defendant to the hospital. CrosK-oxiirnincd ; On the Monday witness was in the defendant’s company fop something like five minutes. Ho had no conversation with the defendant ox. cept about his'own condition of health. The defendant talked at random. Witness had not seen the defendant personally since, ho thought, February, 1899, before the Sunday evening. Witness hail attended the defendant in the latter part of 1898 for alcoholism.

Re-examined: Witness thought that from tho condition of the ■ defendant's clothes, his appearance and everything, no sensible person could fail to detect, that there was something abnormal about him.

A large number ,of witnesses wore examined as to- tho defendant’, l ? condition on the. day in question Ho said himself ho had no recollection of having sold tho property. lie had at one. time received an injury to Ins, head. For some years prior to the time in question he had not taken any drink. He could neither road nor write.

It was stated that the Valuation Department’s valuation of the land and pimnises in. 1897 was £6OO. Mr Gray called rebutting eviddneo. Mr Wilford addressed the Court on behalf of the defendant, and Mr Grav replied on the whole ease. His Honor reserved his decision, aftcir stating that he wished tho case had been tried by jury. The Court rose at 0.!j0 p.m.