A PROPERTY DEAL

Poverty Bay Herald, Volume XLV, Issue 14562, 25 March 1918, Page 4

A PROPERTY DEAL

At tho Supreme Court this afternoon, Alexander Douglas Spiers, of Gisborne, architect (Mr Dunlop), proceeded against Louisa Stevenson, wife of Joseph Stevenson, coachbuilder (Mr Burnard), for a claim of £100 damages in connection with agreement for sale of property, or, alternatively, refund of £100 paid on account. In outlining the case Mr Ihmlop said his client did not want" the property, and merely desired the refund. He contended that the Mortgages Extension Act took away from the mortgagee the right to call up or demand payment, or execute any entry into possession. His Honor: You have not included the Act in your statement of claim. Mr Dunlop: That is law. His Honor : Yes. but law can be waiv. ed to a certain extent. Is there any dispute as to th© facts? Mr Biu-navd : Yes, I think there is. your Honor. His Honor: Well, j r ou had better call the evidence, Mr Dunlop. The plaintiff deposed that on October 26th he eritered into an agreement for sale of property with Louisa. Stevenson. He negotiated with Mr Stevenson. His Honor : How is it signed — by Mrs Stevenson ? — Witness : No. Continuing, witness said that -when he met Mrs Stevenson he did not .discuss the agreement -with her. as arrangements bad been mado with her husband. He paid £10 deposit on tbe morning of the agreement, and the sums mentioned in the statement for defence. The amounts were paid as follows : £90 to Mr Stevensen and his son respectively. No payment was made to Mi*s Stevenson. Witness did all the business with Joseph Stevenson, as he said that although the property was in his -wife's name, he did aii the business. On Saturday^ January tf6, 1918., he had a conversation per tele- 1 nhone with Louisa Stevenson. Witness had an appointment to discuss with Stevensort'plans and terms, and as he could iir.t keep it, he made • arrangements with Mrs Stevenson to alter tbe appointment lo the 28th. Witness kept the appointment. .Stevenson said he would like to know what witness jwas going to do in the shape of wiping off the interest on the property. Witness said he had no intention of paying the interest until his account for plans and specifications for various works had been met. The works Avere not for Mrs Stevenson. -He repudiated any liability, and intimated he would give 14 days to pay the interest, otherwise he would claim the property, take possession, and repudiate the sale-. On Monday. February 11, witness had arranged iwith a tarrier to remove from the section in question a quantity of timber, and -while engaged in the -work. •Stevenson came to the gateway of his premises, when an interview took place, in which witness, refused to pay the amount until his account was cleared. Stevenson then padlocked the gate, and called on the carrier to listen to an oral declaration to th© effect, "That I do hereby take possession of this property." Stevenson then ordered -witness to remove the horse off the paddock, but witness held the gate and said this property belonged to him. He replied, "No." Witness said, "But I paid £200." He replied that it did not matter if he find paid £400. Witness then asked for his property, which was refused, and he thereupon consulted his solicitor. To Mr Burnard : It iwas not a fact that tho first person he spoke to in this matter was Mr F .Stevenson. (Case proceeding.) (Proceeding.)