A PROPERTY DISPUTE.

Star (Christchurch), Issue 11947, 5 March 1917, Page 6

A PROPERTY DISPUTE.

M'IN TOSH v. PARK. TO-DAY'S HEARING. Tho hearing of the property dispute, M'lntosh v. rark. was resumed at tUe Supreme Court this betore his Honor Sir John Denmston. Tho plaintiff claimed hpocific performance l»y the dofwiidsiut oi sui exchange of properties alleged to llrtVv> l * <ni upon. Dotcuciuut cluinicu tmit he had signed a document through misrepresentation. PI ain till hail a iarm ; it Spring.ston which he agreed to exchange for defendants property at Kedclifl'.s, with cash. Mossr* H. Ii- Cook and Co. acted as agents tor boin paitios, and defendant had signed an agreement, purported, to be. a " linn* offer " of his property, at. Cook's office. Mr Raymond, K.C-, with him .\J.r Johnston, appeared for the plaintiff, and Mr Boswick lor the defendant. At the previous hearing, evidence had been given for plaintiff, and a point arose a.'} to whether the evidence of a VI rs Uoldthorpe. who had been interested in another property exchange, could be admitted as proof of a system alleged to have prevailed in Cook's office. This point was argued before the Full Court on Friday last, decision being reserved until this morning, when his Honor Sir John Denniston announced that the. Full Court had decided that Mrs Ooldthorpc's evidence was inadmissible. Donald M'lntoHh, farmer, gave evidence that ho accompanied his brother, the plaintiff, on an inspection of Rodcliffs. Ho hud made exchanges of properties through Cook' office. He hud agreed to look after the liedcliffs glasshouses whilst his brother was at the front.. To Mr Berwick: He had told Mrs Park he would not favour the agreemerit being cancelled. She had said something about their inability to finance the Springston farm. That, concluded the plaintiff's case. Robert Porter, recalled, told of tho. circumstances wherein tho agreement signed by Park wn« drawn up, and said thai tho '• firm offer " was secured as MTntosh would not have inspected Park's property without a firm offer. David R. Par!;, farmer, said that he exchanged his Windsor farm for th- 5 RcvlcJififs property as the work was getting too much for him. Subsequently Cook's man called and obtained an authority to sell the property for i'.TiOO. On January 1 a man from Gore wa.s sent by Cook to inspect, the property, .'•nd tho next morning witness, being in town, called at Cook's office and' inquired if anything had come of the inspection. Porter said thp.t tho property wouid not suit and invited hint to go for a drive in the country. Witness was shown a description of a farm, but he told Porter that he knew wii> ncs could net take on another farm unless it was about 30 acres. He was :hen sirown details about, another farm of 200 acres at £6O an acre, but told Porter that it was ridiculous for him (witness) to look nt- properties of that size. Subsequently witness was introduced to a man in a motor-car, and the party drove to a farm of 151 acres Witness went over a little of the ground, but then said it was no me to liini- They drove in M'lntosh's. whore witness, had a look round- When in the house lie said that the property was too much for hint ; lie could not finance a place like that. Porter pulled out a paper from his pocket, but witness said, "That's no use to me. Anybody going in for this spec, would need Lime, for consideration " M'lntosh said. " Yes. ii, would need seven days at. any rate."' (Proceeding.)