APPEAL COURT

New Zealand Times, Volume XLIII, Issue 10085, 25 September 1918, Page 8

APPEAL COURT

A CHRISTCHURCH CASE. A case beard by the Court of Appeal vesterday concerned an Ashburton proavrty. The appellants wore Robert John Corbett and Samuel Corbett, executors of the Will of Jofin Corbett, deceased., and the respondent was George i'houias Jones. Mr F. Wilding, K.C., with him Mr H. F. von Haast, appeared for tho appellants, aim Mr 3. G. Raymond, K.C.. with him Mr -t • W. cofinston, for the responaent. it w-as alleged by the appellants that in 1903 Robert Jofin Corbett and Jofin Corbett (since deceased) find purchased ironi Arthur Ernest Hart a tarm oi 918 acres in the county of Ashburton, the purchase price being paid with tno exception of £16,000, to bo I )a J a “* c Ia March of 1918. lu May of 19i-i, by signed agreement, tli© cletendant c^ 1 “’ tract&d to buy from the Corbetts. He paid the latter *£5500 on the signing or r,he agreement and agreed to pay the sum of •816,01)0, the balance, of his purchase money, in March, 1918, with interest at tho rate of &> 10s per cent. Defendant went into possession in June, 1914, and subsequently resold it and had given up possession. Ihe defendant had undertaken to pay interest on the balance of JG16,000 direct to Hart at th© office of the Public trustee, Christchurch, and had done so for a time, but had left a balance of .£7O 4s 6a unpaid. This was sued for by the Corbelts, and the defendant couiuer-claim-ed for £1313 3s 9d for alleged, false representation in regard to tfie sale <’f the land, in so far as some 5s acres outside a gorse fence was much inferior in value to the average land within the boundaries he alleged had been -pointed out to him. Subsequently the defendant paid into court the fud amount of the (plaintiffs’ claim and costs, and abandoned his own counterclaim. Then the Corbetts proceeded against tho defendant for the specific performance of the agreement of May, 1914. „ T Having hoard tho evidence, Mr Justice Herdmau held that the defendant had been, misled into beuieving that he was buying a certain area of land, within certain bounds. Later ho discovered that he had been deceived and that to make up his area he would be obliged to saddle himself with 56 acres of poor land of which he knew nothing. An the defendant had intimated his willingness that the contract should be performed, subject 11 a deduction from tbe purchass money by way of compensation. he thought the proper course would he to decree specific performance subject to deduction. The appeal was based on the ground that the portion of His Honour’s judgment directing that compensation should be paid in respect of innocent misrepresentation (as mentioned in tne judgment) was erroneous in law. It was also claimed- in connection with the appeal that, in any case. His Honcur’s ruling as to the measure of compensation ivas erroneous in lavr as the defendant had resold the land at a profit, and no compensation, in any circumstances, could be recovered by bfio defendant by way of deduction or otfier. After argument the Court reserved judgment.