MAGISTRATE'S COURT.

Southland Times, Issue 2634, 23 December 1876, Page 2

MAGISTRATE'S COURT.

(Before H. McOalloch, Esq., RM.) Eeiday, Decembbb 22. 'A " casual toper" was disposed of in the usual way, An order for the medical examination of JPrederika Ott for lunacy was directed to issue. Ihomson and Seat tie v. McPherson. — Mr Harvey for the plaintiffs, and Mr Maodonald for the defendant. In this case, which had been partly heard on Tuesday, the plaintiffs sued for L4O damages on account of the defendant having failed to complete the transfer of section 12, block 5, Winton. John Thomson said that he had bought section 12, block 5, Winton, from Dugald Cameron, for LlO, Mr Cameron showing witness authority in writing to sell. Witness paid a deposit of L 2 10s, and instructed Mr Brodrick to prepare a transfer, and Mr Brodrick's charges came to Ll Is. In consequence of what Mr Brodrick told witness he instructed Mr Harvey, solicitor, to take further steps in the matter. McPherson and Co. wrote saying that the section had been sold to others before, and that the sale by Cameron was the result of mistake, Witness paid 10s for rates on the section, which he valued at L4O. Thomas Brodrick, licensed land broker, said that he had been instructed in the month of June by Mr Thomson to prepare a direction and application for the transfer of section 12, block 5, and on applying to Mr McPherson for the title deeds, he obtained the Receiver of Land Revenue's receipt, and Mr McPherson afterwards stated that the section had been sold before. Mr Macdonald submitted that the plaintiffs must be nonsuited, as there was no written contract sufficient to satisfy the Statute of Frauds, and he quoted Williams v. Lake, decided in the Court of Queen's Bench (Cockburn, C.J.) on the 18th November, 1859, as a case in point, and as showing that the plaintiffs should , be non-suited. Mr Harvey replied, arguing that there could not be a non-suit of the whole question, inasmuch as the deposit money ha not been paid into Court. With regard to the general question, he quoted from Fry on Specific Performances, page 169. and\ argued therefrom that there was in the case sufficient documentary evidence of part performance to substantiate the completeness of tho contract between the parties. Mr Macdonald replied, contending that there wi§ no complete coat-ict/ inasmuch

as the name of the purchaser was not disclosed by the documents in evidence. His Worship said that he would reserve the non-suit point till r tbat\day fortnight. Wilson «. Fredric. — Claim, for Ll 7s for goods. For the plaintiff, 'with costs, 19s.-