A LAND DEAL.

Poverty Bay Herald, Volume XXXIX, Issue 12665, 19 January 1912, Page 2

A LAND DEAL.

A land transaction formed the subject of an unusual, civil action at the Magistrate's Court yesterday afternoon, when Joseph Edward Newton, bulcher (Mr T. Alston Cbleman) proceeded against Robert Little, farmer (Mr L. T. Burnard),. for the recovery of £50. Plaintiff alleged that he employed defendant to act as agent in purchasing for plaintiff Lot 3, part suburban section 150, Gisborne, at the corner of Gladstone road and Wellington street ; that defendant contracted with William Henry King, the owner of the Jand, for the purchase of the same for £200, and paid a deposit of £50 ; that on or about September 15 last defendant falsely' represented to plaintiff that the price of the Jand was £250 and that h© (defendant) had paid a deposit on account of £100 ; that plaintiff thereupon, acting on the representation of defendant, had. paid. l to defendant a deposit of £100, together with £10 as defendant's > remuneration as plaintiff's agent ; • that- through' the false and fraudulent representations of defendant he (plaintiff) had , suffered loss and damage in the . sum of £50. Alternatively plaintiff alleged that he paid defendant £100 in trust for and. on-ac-count of the purchase : fnoney payable' by defendant to" Wm. Hgnry Kipg, but defendant had in .fraud of the^plaintiff failed to pay thereout the ' sum" of £50, or to account to plaintiff therefor. ;r I In detailing the case," counsel for ; plaintiff said the whole question was whether defendant purchase^ the; section from King as agent for plaintiff or on his own^ behalf, as he now asserted. j James. 'Brown, Jand agent, deposed that on September 13 last he was speak- '' ing to plaintiff, when defendant came up. The latter said, he Mas Jjuyin.-r a trap from King, when plaintiff said 'he wanted to buy the section alongside his j shop from King. Plaintiff offered, de- j fendant . £10 if he could buy the section) for £200., adding that he would not Jike j to pay. more than £250. Witness point-' ed King out, and defendant went over; to approach him. Later' in the day he ! asked defendant if he "had "fixed it upi>! when the latter told him he had nothingto do Arith it; it was his.— To Mr Bur- | nard : He did not" attempt to interfere in the; salel Plaintiff (Newton) gave corroborative !■ evidence, affirming/that' he- had- told defendant that if Tie could, buy .the. section for himJie would give him -£10 fo£- his trouble, offering .to go as" high as 8250 sooner than Jose it. About an ho'uir later defendant said . Mr and Mrs . King ' had' .gone away to consider the -offer- he thought it would be all right"; •' and that he would be able to get the- section fop him (plaintiff). He requested defendant if he made tlie deal to pay a deposit of £50, .saying he would give him a cheque J for £60. Next day defendant ,caan© : to ' his (plaintiff's) shopj stating he had ob- 1 tained the -section for him. Defendant! said he had to give the £250, as he j (Jould not get it for anything less. They met again next day by arrangement, when he (plaintiff) remarked he had' to give defendant' a cheque for £60. Defendant (pausing) said the cheque had to be £110. He (plaintiff) : asked if he had paid £100 deposit, and defendant said he had. After going to the bank, he gave defendant a cheque, for £110, and the latter signed the block of the cheque-book. .Witness detailed the subsequent yistf, to the solicitor's office. De-] fendant said he (plaintiff) would have) £150 to pay when the transaction was j completed. He subsequently instructed his solicitor to look into the matter. Wm. S. McCredie, managing clerk for Messrs Kirk, Burnard, and Sievwright, produced receipt for deposit from. W. H. King to defendant. — To Mr Burnard f On a subsequent* visit defendant informed him he had sold the property to plaintiff, and the, latter instructed him | to put the transfer in his (plaintiff' 3) name. Mr Burnard,oin the course of an exhaustive opening, declared that there was no contract that this Court could takte notice; and that the only remedy was the recision of the contract by invoking the aid of the S'uprGme.^pourt. Defendant Little gave evidence that when speaking to plaintiff • the latter said he wished he (defendant) could have bouight the section from Mrs King. He told plaintiff he , would go and see j Ktojg, ■ and ascertain if he would sell. ' Plaintiff said he did not think he would '. have much show as he (plaintiff) had . been trying for two years to get it, and : had put other agents on to get it. He (defendant) said if anyone could get the" section he could, and if he bought the section he would pay cash. Brown said he would follow and see the fun, and he told him he did not want any commission agen^. Brown . followed him, and he told him to go away as he was going to buy the section himself. He bought the section and paid a deposit of £50. Subsequently the same day he informed plaintiff he had bought the section. Plaintiff asked if he was gqin@ to let him (plaintiff) have it, and lie (defendant) replied he could have it for £260. They arranged to jneet on the. 15th, when he told plaintiff he had tp pay £110 down and £150 on the completion of the sale.-^To. Mr. jColeman : He did not buy the section with a view to squeezing £50 out : of ..plaintiff. The latter said he would give him £300 for it. Plaintiff did say he would give £250 for the section, and that 'he-! would pay £10 to him fpr it, but he (defendant) told plaintiff he would buy- it * for himself. After the: evidence of defendant's son' , had been takeny the hearing was adjourned until f this afternoon. . J