THE MOTUKAIKA BLOCK

Timaru Herald, Volume XIC, Issue 13336, 12 July 1907, Page 5

THE MOTUKAIKA BLOCK

ARGUMENT IN THE APPEAL COURT.

Special—By Telegraph

WELLINGTON, July 11,

The argument in the. case Belcher and Chapman versus • Mackenzie and Scott, was concluded in the Court of Appeal tliis afternoon.

Mr F. J. Rolkston continued his address, dealing particularly with the various interviews which had taken place between the: parties at the lime the agreement had bsen entered into. lie pointed out thafc it was admitted by the other side that the area of the tussock block had never been: mentioned at. any of these interviews, and he contended .that; it was a fair deduction from all the facts that ..the. area hart not b:o-n an o'-emr-nt in the. minds of the purchasers at She time the bargain was made. If, therefore, any statement as to area- had been made by 'the vendors, it was char that it hart not had any influence on the transaction. He dealt particularly with the devils of [he meeting in Mr Tripp's- office o.\ the 26th March, when all the parties hivl met. and after the claim had been made ' and indignantly repudiated, the purchaser." s had signed a new agreement without any 'reservation o? any righ'' to claim compensation. He supported Mr Raymond'*' argument- on this head, that the'signing of the second agreement was a discharge of and substitution for the first agreement, and that if there had been any warranty as to the area such warranty was part of the fhvt agreement. Cnnsrqucntly on the signing of the second agreement- the first agreement was at an -end and the warranty went- with it-. H.e urged that the inferences of fact to be drawn from, this meeting \\fere v<ry strong, H-- also referred to .'the fact that though the purcha'Ci!} knew of the excos of area, of tussock land early in February, there had bee® no suggestion of a claim on 9th March.

Mr 'Skerre'tt, K:C., replied at considerable length, his address occupying two and a half hours. H.e argued that the principle contended for by Mr Raymond applied to verbal alterations or variations in a. contract, and not to verbal misrepresentations. - As So the subject,matter he contended alf=o that contracts for ."ale of land were de-alt with by courts of equity in a different manner from other contracts-. In regard to the facts he pointed out that Mackenzie's litter which was relied on by both parties must be judged by -the effect which it was calculated to produce on the purchasers. , Mr Justice D-ennislon interposed that the letter must be construed in relation to the question put in C'orsbie's letter to which it was in answer. Mr Skerrett contended, further, that- the fact of the- area of the tusfiock block net having been mentioned at the time of the signing of the agreements was in his favour, as it showed that the purchasers were relying on She assurances already made. He urged that the agreement signed on 26th March was in no way a discharge of the first agreement. Mr Justice Williams asked whether this was not the- position : that the purchasers had agreed to buy for a certain sum and then claimed to deduct £36 CO of the purchase money for an alleged misrepresentation : then they entered into a new agreement to pay the full amount stated in the original contract without deducting Slieir claim or reserving their rights in respect of it.

Mr Slvsrreti: contended that the purchasers had not in any way waived .'their rights by the signing oF the second agreement.

At ilie conclusion of the argument, which had occupied three clays, ihe Court intimated that they would reserve their decision.