FARMERS DIFFER

New Zealand Times, Volume LI, Issue 11875, 8 July 1924, Page 3

FARMERS DIFFER

A DISPUTED CONTRACT. CASE BEFORE FULL COURT. The Full Court (the Chief Justice, Mr Justioe Sim, Mr Justice Stringer, Mr Justice Reid, and Mr Justice MacGregor) yesterday heard an appeal from the judgment of Mr Justice SaLmond in the case of Nielsen v. Spurwell. Mr M.' Myers, K.C., and Mr 0. C. Mazengarb appeared for the executrix of Spurwell’s estate, and Sir John Findlay K. 0., and Mr A. M. Gould for Nielsen, the appellant. The case dated back to 1918, and concerned a dispute over a contract of exchange in September of that.year in which Niels Nielsen, a farmer, of Pukekohe, handed over his leasehold interest in his houses to William Atwill Spurrell, farmer, of Auckland, for the latter’s freehold farm at Puni. After Nielsen had taken possession it had been found that the amount of the mortgage of the houses was not as had been represented. Spurrell took aotion against the other for specific performance of the contract. Nielsen denied responsibility, and Mr Justice Salmond on hearing the .case, after ordering the contract to b,e stamped, granted a decree against Spurrell, to Be sealed only when the stamping had been done. The parties had differed over the payment of fines for the non-stamping of the contract and comnji scion charges, and for two years finality was not reached. At last Nielsen left the farm and aske dthe court to rescind the contract,. Spurrell then meeting, the charges and asking the court to determine accounts between the parties. Nielsen’s motion had been dismissed by Mr Justice Salmond, who divided the chargee between the parties, decided that Nielsen could not charge commission oni the collection of rents, and, that Spurrell must meet interest charges upon the sum of £I4OO until it was paid. Nielsen then appealed against this decision, Spurrell dying in the meanand in court yesterday counsel for respondent arguing that the appeal was out of’time, and Nielsen’s counsel that if this were so special leave to appeal should be given. The Ohief Justioe intimated that the court Bud decided to hear argument upon the merits of the case, and Sir John Findlay and Mr Gould both addressed the benoh. Mr Gould’s address was unfinished last evenin'g, and the case will continue to-day.