A WAIRARAPA CASE

Wairarapa Age, 18 November 1919, Page 5

A WAIRARAPA CASE

OlillM FOB £2OOO DAMAGES

.. A case of considerable importance, Involving a claim for £2OOO damages, arising out of an alleged abortive deal in land, was commenced before His xionor, Mr Justice Chapman, in the (supreme Court at Palmerston on (Saturday. The case was that in wtoch'Robert John Dngg, farmer, of Western Lake, 1' eatherston, proceeded against Edward Sidney Heckler, iarmer, of Pahi'atua, for £2OOO damages ior alleged breach of agreement. Mr M. Myers, ot Wellington ,appeared for the plaintiff, and" Mr C. r. Skerrett, K.C., with him Mr Harold bmith, of Pahiatua, for the aeienaanu. m the statement of claim it was set out "tTiat by an agreement m writing dated July 19, 1919, defendant contracted to buy a certain block of land near Featherston for the sum or £15,b51 15s 6d. Defendant also agreed to purchase the BtocK for the sum ot £905 15s. Pursuant to the agreement the plaintiff ouly executed a memorandum of transter on or abuat August 10. The detendant had not executed his part. of the transaction, and the plaintiff therefore claimed ,the sum of £2OOO , in compensation of various lossep occasioned by the barrent results of the deal and the termination of a , lease, loss of grazing fees, and" other inatters. TTTe statement of ■ defence set out that according to a plan produced by plaintiff, and on which the valutand area of the land was computed, , area of the better class land, CTat which lay on the lake side of the railway, was erroneously stated. Defendant denied the allegation regarding the transfer, which it was contended ,was forwarded only provisionally With a vi&w to the completion of the Sale. The sale was not completed, nor did the transfer become operative. Detendant denied the allegation regarding the purchase of tho stock and contended that plaintiff had not suffered the damage declared. ivetendant also act up a counterclaim for compensation, and acknowledgment that the contract had been rescinded, on the rounds that he had paid £2OO to the plaintiff by way of deposit and had paid £l2 towards fence repairs and incurred £BO in Tegal expenses in anticipation of the completion of the contract.