SUPREME COURT

Southland Times, Issue 19069, 2 March 1921, Page 7

SUPREME COURT

INVERCARGILL SESSIONS. (Before His Honor Mr Justice Sim.) The session of the Supreme Court opened [ yesterday before His Honour, Mr Justice i Sim. There were no criminal cases for trial. CIVIL CASES. Begg and Co., Ltd., (Mr Stout) v Henry Neame <Mr H. Macalister l —claim for dissolution of partnership and £263 17/6 moneys advanced. The defendant, who did not appear, disputed £5 in the course of a ' counter claim for £823. Evidence w&given by the secretary’ and director of the plaintiff company, Mr J. S. MceKnzie, who stated that the moneys claimed had been lent to the defendant by the company— I Judgment was given for the plaintiff, interest on the moneys to be reckoned at five per cent from the respective dates on which they were received. Costs were fixed on the middle scale, disbursements and expenses to he fixed by the Registrar. A FARM SALK. Albert James Crooks and May Crooka (Mr H. Macalister) v Joseph Torrens Hazlett (Mr Stout, instructed by Mr Hall) claim for specific performance of conditions under agreement of sale and purchase of s farm for £4410. A counter-claim for £750 was lodged on the grounds that the plaintiffs had wrongly represented the land to be carrying certain stock for many months and that the stock had been running in the crops after the sale to defendant. Both claims were heard together. Mr Macalister said that the plaintiff Albert James Crooks, was a farmer at Isla Bank and his mother, the other plaintiff had an interest in the property. In September last plaintiff placed the farm in the hands of Messrs Scandrett and Son for disposal. Their salesman, Mr Nicholson, got into touch with the defendant and he, Nicholson and a brother of the plaintiff, William Crooks, visited the farm in November and a sale was effected that day at £lB per acre, a total of £4,410, a condition of the agreement being that the grass crops should be given-, in and that the vendor put in 30 acres of turnips. According to Mr Macalister’s statement the defendant returned to Nicholson a few days later, and, while expressing satisfaction with his bargain, offered to sell the farm again for £2O per acre. A day or two later defendant and some friends visited the farm to find no one at home. A little later the two plaintiffs arrived, and, later, some sheep and cattle broke into the crops. No damage was done and defendant classed the invasion as “nothing.” The following day defendant called on Nicholson and stated that he was not going on with the deal, complaining about the invasion of the crops by the stock. Nicholson suggested that the damage, if any, should be assessed. but a day or two later defendant told Nicholson that he was not going on with the deal, mentioning financial difficulties. The defence insisted that Has lett was not sober at the time of the deal, but it would be shown that he had one drink at Wallacetown on the way to the farm and a little more after the agreement had been signed. \ The statement of defence set out that the defendant was under the influence of liquor at the time of the deal and that there had been misrepresentation. The plaintiff submitted that, although defendant had had drink be had not had enough to make him incompetent, and the defence of misrepresentation was absolutely denied. Lengthy evidence in support of the plaintiffs case was called. In opening the defendant's case, Mr Stout said that it was intended to prove that because of liquor supplied by the plaintiffs or their agents, the defendant was non compos mentis at the time the contract was entered into. If the action had been to rescind the contract the defendant would have had to prove that he was completely off his mental balance through drink, but in a claim for specific performance a number of other conditions arose. According to authorities relief was justifiable even if the party was notr completely deprived of his mental reason. TTie defendant had not touched liquor for years except for medicinal purposes. On the morning of the day on which the agreement was signed, he had been asked to inspect a farm by William Crooks. Partly to humour Crooks and partly for the run into the country, defendant had agreed, although he had no idea of making a purchase, his capital—he was a taxi driver—being tied up. Crooks had said that it was better to use an agent’s petrol than their own, and Nicholson’s sendees were enlisted. Nicholson stopped at the Wallacetown Hotel and defendant, although unwilling, had been persuaded to go in, Crooks and Nicholson each “shouting’ once. By the time the farm was reached the whisky fumes had gone to defendant’s head and he was under the impression that the party had had drinks from a bottle of whisky produced by Crooks before inspecting the farm. Mentioning what he termed some “singular features’’ about the contract, Mr Stout stated that it provided for a deposit of only £lO. Further, a mortgage of over £l5OO had been taken over at 5i per cent instead of at 5 per cent, and it was provided that this should be paid off periodically. The time for the first payment was past, so that the mortgage could be called in now owing to default, or, if the Moratorium Act prevented this, after June 30. Unless a man had the money to pay off the mortgage by instalments it was practically impossible for him to raise it now. The Courts took a much more severe view of intoxication in such a case when the liquor that made a man careless, or less critical of an agreement was supplied by the other party. After entering into the contract the defendant had eone to Nicholson and had stated that he blamed the whisky for his having signed the agreement. This was next day. Witnesses were called for the defence. Cross-examined by Mr Macalister regard ing his financial position, defendant stated that he had £5OO invested with Wright. Stephenson and Co., but he had overdrawn more than this amount from the bank. He held a mortgage for £l5OO over a property he had owned. His wife owned one of the two cars he ran—she had had it for 12 months. His wife also held their house and section. These had been transferred to her in December—before the summons was served on him—as her money had built the house. The Court adjourned until 10 o’clock to-day.