POSSESSION OF LARGE BLOCK OF LAND CLAIMED.

Star (Christchurch), Issue 18787, 17 June 1929, Page 11

POSSESSION OF LARGE BLOCK OF LAND CLAIMED.

PLAINTIFF ALLEGES FARM HAS SUFFERED. A case in which Irene Hart M’Connell, of Ashburton, widow, executrix of the will of Henry M’Connell, claimed from Archibald George M’Cormick and John Stewart M’Cormick, farmers, possession of a piece of land of 1341 acres, situated at Rangitata, was heard in the Supreme Court this morning. Mr Justice Smith presided. Mr Charles appeared for plaintiff and Mr Upham and Mr Nicoll for the defendants. The statement of claim stated that on June 1, 1920 Henry M’Connell, by agreement for sale and purchase, agreed to sell, and William Garland Chapman agreed to purchase, a piece of land situated in the Rangitata Survey District, at a price of £lO per acre. In 1923 an amending agreement was signed and defendants were substituted for Chapman, who was released from li.-.bility. The new agreement contained a clause that Henry M’Connell would be entitled to cancel the agreement if default should arise, and continue for three months in payment of any purchase money or interest due under the agreement. The agreement contained clauses which required the purchaser to keep the land free from noxious weeds, broom and gorse, and to keep all buildings upon the land in good order and condition. Henry M’Connell died in August, 1927. Defendants had defaulted, and on February 6, 1929, plaintiff wrote to the defendants cancelling the agreement. Defendants had neglected the notice and refused to give up possession of the k.nd.

Mr Charles said that the facts as alleged were practically admitted. Statement of Defence. The statement of defence contained a denial of the default. It was also denied that the plaintiff by notice in writing, cancelled the agreement. For a further defence, it was stated that if the plaintiff should prove any default in the performance or observance of any clause, of the agreement, the plaintiff had failed to serve upon the defendants any notice under section 94 of the Property Law Act, 1908, or otherwise, howsoever, specifying the particular breach complained of, or requiring the defendants to remedy any breach or requiring the defendants to make compensation in money. Irene Hart M’Connell gave evidence along the lines set out in the statement of claim. Witness said that Chapman bought the land from her father for £lO an acre and sold it to the defendant for £ll. Thomas Tarbottom, a farmer, estimated that it would take £4OO to put the property in order. The property had not been knocked about, but the gorse had not been attended to. He valued the land at £8 an acre. W. R. M’Connell said that the gorse had spread since the defendants took over the property in 1923. Mr Upham applied for a non-suit on the grounds that the notice did not sufficiently inform the defendants what plaintiff complained of. Secondly, the defendants had not been given a reasonable time. Mr Charles said that there were definite allegations that the buildings had not been painted. He submitted that it was unreasonable to expect the plaintiff to go all over the property and point out everything that needed attention. (Proceeding.)