A PECULIAR CASE.

Taranaki Daily News, 26 August 1921, Page 6

A PECULIAR CASE.

LEASING A SHOP IN HAWERA.

“AN ILLEGAL TRANSACTION”

“The whole of them were engaged in an illegal transaction, for which they could have been prosecuted, and it is unfortunate that the proceedings were not disclosed in time for prosecution.” This was the comment made by His Honor Mr. Justice Salmond, in the Supreme Court, New Plyl mouth, during the hearing of an action yesterday. His Honor was referring particularly to an instance of breaches of the law governing the holding of land by enemy aliens under the War Regulations Act. The case engaging the attention of the Court was a claim by John Urlich (Huwera) against Walter Journeaux, asking for a transfer of certain property from defendant to plaintiff, or, in lieu, the payment of £585 which had been paid in connection with transactions in which the parties were engaged. Mr. F. C. Spratt , (Hawera) appeared for plaintiff, and Mr. P. O’Dea (Hawera) for defen/ant. The plaintiff was a restaurant keeper at Hawera, and an unnaturalised alien, though he had lived in New Zealand for many years. According to counsel’s statement, Urlich decided to sell out the lease of his business in 1917, to a brother and cousin, and entered into a covenant not to re-enter the same class of business in that town for at least a year. At the end of that period he decided to re-commence as a restaurant keeper, and approached a firm of land agents (Grant and Campbell) with a view to securing shop premises, and he offered them a bonus of £5O. Nothing was clone on this occasion. Later Urlich was told that the premises known as the Golden Grid, which he had given up to his

brother, would be available. The agents told him they bad a man who was prepared to buy it, aud he wanted io know what rental Urlich would pay. Plaintiff offered to pay xl per week and rates and taxes. Ihe peison who intended to. buy the property was supposed to be a man named Webster, from New Plymuoth, but he did not buy.

In March, 1918, plaintiff was Informed that Journet|ux would buy the shop and give him a lease. The freehold belonged to Hallenstein Brothers, and the arrival of one of the managing directors of this firm was awaited. Up (ill this time, it was contended, Urlich had in view only a lease of the property, and it, was not till later he was told that he was expected to take a part in purchasing. He affirmed bis willingness to pay £250 a year rental, plus taxes, and asked for a five years’ lease. By reason of the War Regulations, however, it was unlawful for Urlich to secure any greater interest than a two years’ lease. The parties did not know this at the/time. His Honor: It was the business of the land agents to know. Continuing, counsel said Urlich knew he could nut acquire the freehold. It was mentioned that Journeaux was short of cash and Urlich offered to pay rent in advance for onevycar, and h<> later gave Grant a cheque ‘for £2OO. When Urlich got home he showed the receipt to his wife, who noticed that it was merely an acknowledgment by Grant and Campbell £2OO. At her instance payment of the cneque was stopped.

, _ Subsequently the cheque was paid all right, and Mrs. Urlich was fold that her husband was to pay another £30(1 to Journeaux, who would hold the property in trust for him, and that would be able to buy later. Mr. and Mrs. Urlich were astounded at this proposal, as they did not have the money to purchase a properly worth over £4OOO. It appeared that Journeaux was to pay £lOOO down, of which £5OO would be found by Urlich, v.ho was told that if it was found he could not complete the deal the property could easily be ;;old, and he would get his money out of it. He was also to have a lease for live years from Journeaux, who had apparently entered into a contract, with Hallenstein Bros. On going to a solicitor Urlich found that he could not get a five years’ lease, and took a two years’ ten nacy. Mrs. Urlich was told that the other money would be all right, as it would be held in trust.

Plaintiff biter sold his interest in the lease, receiving for this and goodwill and stock a total of £looo. He had to give an undertaking that he would pav rates and taxes (including land tax). Affei this Urlich approached Journeaux, with i a view to taking over the whole property or getting his £5OO back. The result of the interview was that Journeaux refused to pay the money.

His Honor: It is an illegal contract; you are trying to get the money back and. the question is whether you can.

Counsel contended that as the agreement had not been carried into effect it was not too late to announce their withdrawal and ask for the return of the money The. evidence of piaintilf was on’ the hues of counsel’s statement, and was proceeding at the luncheotE adjournment.

On resuming counsel representing both parties announced that, a settlement had been arrived at. Defendant was to pay plaintiff £7O and to release plaintiff from his obligations under the agreement for £2OO, rates and taxes. Plaintiff relinquished any claim for possession, and each side would pay its own costs.