SALE OF HOUSE PROPERTY

Otago Daily Times, Issue 22741, 29 November 1935, Page 6

SALE OF HOUSE PROPERTY

MISREPRESENTATION ALLEGED CONDITION OF DWELLING A property deal, in which misrepresentation of the condition of a dwelling was alleged, was the subject of a protracted case in the Magistrate's Court yesterday before Mr J. R. Bartholomew, S.M. The sale of the house in question was made by Louisa Thirza Oliver Millier and Frederick Millier to Arthur John Fox and Sarah Fox. In the statement of claim it was stated that, in December last, the plaintiffs had agreed to purchase a property at NorthEast Valley with two dwellings for the sum of £2IOO from Louisa Thirza Oliver Millier. It was alleged that both defendants had made independent representations that the older house was sound and in good condition with the exception that one corner of a room was infested with borer, when it was known to both defendants that the building was infested with borer, the roof was decayed and leaking and the dwelling not iii sound or good condition. The representations were made by the defendants with the intention that the plaintiffs should act upon it and the latter had done so. The difference between the value of the old house as represented by the defendants and its real value was £llß. The plaintiffs claimd from Mrs Millier this amount as damages, with costs, or in the alternative, a like sum, with costs, from Frederick Millier for alleged deceit. Mr J. M. Paterson appeared for the plaintiffs and Mr A. I. W. Wood for the defendants.

Outlining the facts of the claim, Mr Paterson said that the two parties were old friends. On Millier guaranteeing that the old house was sound, the question of inspecting it had been waived. The untruth of the representation was not discovered . for some , time as Millier continued to occupy the new house for a few months. Evidence would be given that there was borer right through the house, that the roof was in a bad state, and that the wash-house was so riddled with borer that it was beyond repair. Evidence of the steps leading up to the purchase of the property was given by one of the plaintiffs, Arthur John Fox, a butcher, who stated that he and Millier were great friends and had known each other for nearly 40 years. He stated that he had inspected the new house and was entirely satisfied with it. When the question of inspecting the old house arose he had taken Millier's word that the dwelling, though old, was sound, although there were one or two borer holes in a front room, which the plaintiff thought he could treat satisfactorily. Consequently, he and his wife had purchased the property for £2IOO, but they would not have done so if they had known the condition of the old house. He went on to describe the state of the roof and the wash-house, which was too rotten to be removed. After the removal of a fence alongside the old house it was disclosed that the wall was riddled with borer. On inspecting the interior of the house he had found it was full of borer, and the building itself 'was badly built and unsound. On the estimate of a builder it would have cost £3O to repair the roof. Millier had been informed of the position, but had admitted that he did not know it was in disrepair. Witness had endeavoured to have the dispute settled by submitting the whole facts to friendly arbitration. He had had builders inspect the house and it would cost £llß to put the building in satisfactory condition.

In answer to Mr Wood witness stated that the house was bringing in £1 a week and the present tenants had not complained of the state of the house nor had shown inclination to leave.

Corroborative evidence was given by Sarah Fox, wife of the previous witness and joint plaintiff. Evidence was also given by Archibald M'Laren, builder, John M'Cormack, building contractor; Archibald Magee. tenant of the house; John Groves, a previous tenant; Albert Manuel Harris, builder, and John Cyril Varcoe, a previous tenant.

Mr Wood, for the defence, stated that the defendants denied having made the statement that the house was in sound order and did not remember the plaintiffs asking a question to that effect. The plaintiffs had been very anxious to buy the property and five years or so before tho ultimate purchase Mrs Fox had asked Mrs Millier to sell the property and had approached her again in November last. The defendants did not consider the borer sufficiently bad to warrant stripping the walls and replacing the infested boards They knew nothing about the condition of the roof, jut had continually been spending small amounts on keeping the house in repair.

Frederick Millier, retired bootmaker, gave lengthy evidence as to the transaction, stating that Mrs Fox had been very anxious to buy the property and had approached witness and his wife several years ago io purchase the property. No desire had been expressed by the plaintiffs to inspect the property. The deal had been transacted with Mrs Fox, and witness had not seen the other plaintiff till some days later. Discussing the old house with Fox, he had mentioned there was a little borer and that one leak had onurrcd in the roof three weeks earlier. H- did not/ remunber saying the house was sound and he did no' recall that such a question had been asked. Witness reearded the house to be vn good order and it had always been occupied by tenants, none of whom had complained of borer. His reason for selling was because of his advanced age, his wife's house, and *he size rf the property. Louisa Thirza Oliver Millier, the other defendant, gave evidence on similar lines t( the previous witness, after which the hearing was adjourned until this morning.