SUPREME COURT.

Wanganui Chronicle, Volume L, Issue 12145, 4 September 1908, Page 8

SUPREME COURT.

(Continued from page 5.)

.asked two or three times about an ■-extension. To Mr Devine: There was a great .*deal of discussion about an extension in -witness's office. Witness again describ- j -ed the circumstances about going out j with the Milners and McGowan to the | farm on two occasions. Milner signed the agreement on his son-in-law.'s recommendation. When they got back witness showed them .the terms of the Hease. Witness thought they all thoroughly understood what the Wms of tho lease were. He thought he told " -them'-frequently Witness thought defendant was foolish to say he would not Jook at the place after he had signed tho agreement. Witness would not swear Milner said this after he signed. Never guaranteed a 12 years' extension. Would not promise anything at all a rwr -lie had got the man's signature. Witness raised "the price to get extra commission. Willis had authorised him to -sell at £500. Milner did not say be would not: take the place if he could not get an extension as far as he remembered. Witness swore he did not way he would guarantee an extension -for 1.2 years. He said he would try. his r; best to get an extension. He never -guaranteed an extension at all. He did -not think the word "guarantee" was mentioned. Witness wrote the offer -himself and got, it typewritten. Cannot remember whether he read it over, -or handed it to Milner. . Defendant never stated when he paid:the deposit that it was paid on the understanding ■that an extension should be obtained. ~ Could not say why in the agreement he left but the term of six years. Witness --did not leave, it out because he did not want to put i_n the .12 years. He em- - rphatically ilenied this. They understood -perfectly about the lease and its terms. "Witness often "made messes" with his -agreements. Did not remember an'Othei! case very similar to this where ;an action was brought through a misrepresentation made by him""(the witness). Andrew P. izett, employed by P. G. ~Forlong, remembered taking Milner and -•McGbVah but to see 'Willis's plaie "Told them on going but that the term —wag 6£ years. Witness on return did ;-not. tell them the price, Forlong told them that- night*. They knew next ; morning, of tho^term and the price. When the Milners came out front Forlong's- room they waited in the., ire n't v office/^apd Milner;-seTaior/iislcfed^if an extension-vcould not be- granted. For- .;'■"■ long^saidf he would communicate with 'Cowper. about it. Milner told Korlong "to tell Cowper if an extension was granted the buildings • would be , im--proyedr Forlong never gave an undertaking to £et. the extension. To; Mr Deyirie.:, Forlong did not say in witness's hearing-that Covv-per was a personal friend of his," It was quite incidental going to Willis's place. Witness wag sure he told defendant there was about 6i years to run when they -^first went out to the platee—spofoi fiom roemory and said the price was about £000. Was asked if there was a chance -of getting an extension, but said that had nothing to do with him. On the Teturii the extension was talked! about between all of them at the office. ; _ H. Stone, clerk, employed by P. G. Forlongi produced Forlong's' authority to sell Willis's place. Milner and liis -Bon had a copy submitted fco them Remembered defendant and his son and -^P n~in-'aw being at the offica and overneard parts of conversation in the oi:t----/?r office. Did hear mention of an «x----tension. Heard Forlong say lie would try to get_i,n extension as he k new "Cowper There was a good deal of talk - about it. v This was after the agreement was signed. ' — . ToVMr Devine: Believed Izett" did particulars to_.the defendant -ribout the place.- Witness did not show itr to defendant.; There was a good de»l —bf; ; :talk,about the extension. Heard -nothingabout a purchasing clause. Miljner had said if the lease were extended ho wonldaaatotne buildings '" ' '■--' :- - George:; ;T: fboKes, of: Wanganui,-■"'■:•.-■'"4* 1™i-™ at*i ager,- said he was manager for "Mr Willis. Remembered Izett bringing "W men out on the Friday, and "also Jorlong bringing out Milner and the two.young men., The young men knew _*iyl referred to the fact 'that'the lease naA 6£^vears to go, butXnbfe to the pnte.. , He (witness) referred; them> to - Lowper about an extension-which they -asked about. .. . / "".TC,^^ '"■ S ~ T?- Mr Devine.: Was positive thnfcJ -u• y ..mentloned .6£ yesLrsf^rM asked him if it were to; get an ex-' V*e«slPn- Did not know whether they had. bought or not—it was- iibt his business:/ Willis told him (witness)-some -time back that he thought he could>et ~an extension pf the leß^e. ■ ~ , His , Honour said that tVe Court & -might entertain matfer. outside tho contract, any matter'of misrepresentation or,, anything which makes the oar--1^ 0"^ ? f ,ihe contract inequitable. ■■IJin toiirt. had. a genera] discretion, < Mr .Cohen, for plaintiff, said he did ?J°\ wtend addressing the Court on the ■ Tacts.-. •-■...-.•. ■ ■•'.- ■ ■■• ...■.■;......;.'-

Mr Devine, for the defence, cited a large number of cases as to the con--elusion 4he Court wojikL come to front He submitted that -as the term of years was left out in the agreement it was no good—at any rate was. -ambiguity,,- Defendants -i^V^eed to-pay £550 because he relied mi getting; thel2 years' extension, and he signed on that condition. An •agent.making a false statement in such .■a cn^o was bound^y it. It was an in.justico.to fores defendanb to go to great expense i n erecting buildings for v -short term when he thought he was getting.a long one.;. A decree of specific -perfo-maiu-e would involve hardship on -the defendant, Counsel auntedauthor)iges on the effects.of mistake, ambio-ui-■tyand misrepresentation. Defendant nevpr mtonded to enter into the agreement he had signed. There were .other poir.ts. It had been brought out in evidence that.it was a sub-lease, and : not,'!J'. leaSf' that wn.s being ehlrT "Cow- * Jlo^ "'ttirSelf- -n-w aileVsee". nnd t^is fact itself wah a mterepreseirfHion. Cowper again had not given his consent in to the >ale of the sublease. TbereforG on 20th June there was no tmc to •ftom'pletr*.--' Mi- Cohen bvieflv vo p j} e d a"d said ■tha^j plaintiff b*d all the elements -ready for title: Consent was generally <>nclor<wxl on the lease whou executed I\o obiection had bo Pn ma d^ as to the -cnpacity t-o give title. Plaintiflf was •^bl^to givp a title at the df+,« of rpnu■diation. What was sold w"« Mr Willis's ipase. and whnt was bought Mas what Mr Willis had. He submitted that ii' n-"1 "l" st b" conclusively proved, and "tins had not been don°. His Honour reserved judgment.