AN APPEAL DISMISSED.

Pahiatua Herald, Volume XXXIII, Issue 9980, 10 July 1925, Page 2

AN APPEAL DISMISSED.

ALTERED SALE NOTE PALMERSTON NORTH CASE. Reserved judgment in an appeal action, in the case Leyland Motors, Ltd. v. J. A. Mitchell was given in the Supreme Court Wellington by His Honour Mr Justice MacGregor. The appellants as plaintiffs in the court below had sued respondent for £IOB for breach of contract the latter having refused to accept a motoreasi- after having signed an agreement. The magistrate (Mr J, L. Stout S.M.) had found in his judgment that respondent was justified in bis action, because of ra material alteration made in the agreement subsequent to its being signed. This was the addition of the words ‘in design” to the clause ‘‘body to he the same as demonstrator” making the clause read -‘body to be the same in design as demonstrator.”

. His Honour held that it was a well settled rule that if a. material alteration is made by erasure, interlineation, addition, or otherwise the obligation contained in such agreement could not be enforced against the parwho did not consent to such alteration. He held that there had been here material alteration in this case, and that this was sufficient to justify the magistrate’s decision. The appeal was dismissed.