SPECIFIC PERFORMANCE.

Stratford Evening Post, Volume XXXII, Issue 64, 11 March 1912, Page 6

SPECIFIC PERFORMANCE.

IG CASE PROCEEDING IN THE SUPREME COURT.;; ROBISON v. SANSON. Hearing was resumed at The Saronic Zfourt on Saturday morning in le case in which M. C. Robison propeded against Henry Sanson, jan., ►r specific performance of an agree©nt to exchange farm lands. Mr l. D. Bell, K.C., and with him Mr by, appeared for plaintiff, and in le absence of Mr C. P. Skerrett, .C., the case for file defence was inducted by Mr Spence. The first witness called'was E. R. 0. ilmour, land agent, who said that in le absence of any arrangements the Hnxnission was, in the case of .land ;ents, usually pooled and afterwards yided. The opinion he had formed Sanson was that ho was a keen and ireful man of business. Mr Spence: “It is a common pracce for each side to bump up the dues of the respective properties so to correspondingly increase the mimission.” Witness replied that that was not is experience. Mr Spence: Do you think it-your bo tell your principal that yea •o pooling the commission ? Witness; No. Evidence was then given by E. riffiths as o a sample of oats grown i the island. He stated that for luffing purposes it was a par tic urly nice line.- He- would not care > judge the land altogether from le crop, however. To Mr Spence:. It was quite* pestle to have a very poor crop and yet tain a good sample over a widespread Mr Spence: You don’t feel it your ;o v let the vendor know that the ►mmission is being pooled? Witness : That is so. Ho added that r the pooling arrangement an agent nuld get more commission than il I got om-mission from only his own lent. John Kemp was at ones time his employ, and witness found : m be man of the highest integrity. Win. P. Nacoll, seed and grain inerlant, also gave his opinion on the its produced •in court, -stating; that ley were a good sample. Witness Ided that the knots of sheaves proicod in court had been machine tied. Evidence on behalf of the plaintiff as also given by John Kemp, a rmer in the Bay of Plenty, v|ho is so interested in Mercury Island. Ho istihed to the fact that Sanson hac sen informed of the grassing fciausc the mortgage prior to the salp. Mr Spence: "Why did you nqirinye; mr name on the title deeds of the land? - f-if Witness: Need I answer that* queV’ on? „ His Honour: Yes. Witness; Because if ray name was i the title I could not have gone in r a block of land from the Crown. Mr Spence: Now, /Mr Kemp, as a an of honour, do you think that ace is worth £3 10s pci” acre casl"? Witness. Yes I Mr Spence: And will pay a mafUto ork it? With ess; If a man has sufficient cans m work it for three or fear ;ars i will be worth another £1 per :re by that time. Albert Kemp, who described himdf as a farmer, but formerly a land ;ent, said that he was on his -way . take lame prospective purchjisers iriffin Bros.) over the island,V;w|ien 3 met Sanson, who told him he' .he’d rranged to purchase the land. Witess told Sanson that Griffin;‘Bros, ere very much disappointed- r:; t :o.y anted :o buy the island.themfelvrs. i expressing himself well satisnsd ith the place, Sanson, asked him to aep Griffin Bros, out ox Robison’s ay, because lie was only making an cchange of properties, while they ere cash buyers and might be given reference. Cross-examined by Mr Spence, witis said that Robison was a relative his. The court then adjourned tjll 10 clock this norning.