Thank you for correcting the text in this article. Your corrections improve Papers Past searches for everyone. See the latest corrections.

This article contains searchable text which was automatically generated and may contain errors. Join the community and correct any errors you spot to help us improve Papers Past.

Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image

A DISPUTED CLAIM.

SALE OF A COTTAGE.

DECISION RESERVED

The sale of a cottage situated m Ballanee Street was the subject of a civil action at the Magistrate’s Court yesterday 7 . Andrew Hoed (Mr. Burnard) sued Wm. Burkett (Mr. Bright) for £ll 10s, being the amount alleged to be due in respect of the sale, or 7 in the alternative, £ll 10s for the use and occupation of the cottage. The plaintiff stated that he was the owner of a cottage in Ballanee Street, Gisborne. The defendant and his wflfe went to plaiiTtiff in April last and asked him if he had any empty houses, and plaintiff pointed out the house mentioned. On returning, defendant asked the rent, and plaintiff said 15s per week. The defendant then wanted to know 7 the price of the property. Plaintiff told him his usual terms v 7 ere £SO deposit-. Defendant said he had not that amount. He only had £2O. This plaintiff accepted, with 15s per week, being principal and interest on the purchase price, £SOO. It was arranged with defendant that the interest should be 7 per cent, and he took possession, a few days later. Defendant had the option of paying £2O or more every twelve months."’ He paid rent from time to time, but lie fell into arrears to the extent of £8 or £lO, but later he paid all but a small balance. He fell into arrears again to the extent of £ll 10s, which was due on January 23rd. He now owed plaintiff that amount. Plaintiff offered to allow defendant to pick anv section lie liked, and he would build a house- for him.

Murray Ontlibert, land salesman, residing at Gisborne, said he had the property in his hands for sale in March and April last vear. He had occasion to submit the property for sale, but defendant’s wife said' that her husband had bought the property. ' E. C. H. Hamlin gave evidence as to defendant making payments for rent. Mr. Bright moved for a nonsuit on the ground that it was a case for specific performance, and the Court had no power to deal with it. The Magistrate reserved his decision on the nonsuit point.

Permanent link to this item
Hononga pūmau ki tēnei tūemi

https://paperspast.natlib.govt.nz/newspapers/GIST19110218.2.101

Bibliographic details
Ngā taipitopito pukapuka

Gisborne Times, Volume XXIX, Issue 3148, 18 February 1911, Page 11

Word count
Tapeke kupu
369

A DISPUTED CLAIM. Gisborne Times, Volume XXIX, Issue 3148, 18 February 1911, Page 11

A DISPUTED CLAIM. Gisborne Times, Volume XXIX, Issue 3148, 18 February 1911, Page 11

Help

Log in or create a Papers Past website account

Use your Papers Past website account to correct newspaper text.

By creating and using this account you agree to our terms of use.

Log in with RealMe®

If you’ve used a RealMe login somewhere else, you can use it here too. If you don’t already have a username and password, just click Log in and you can choose to create one.


Log in again to continue your work

Your session has expired.

Log in again with RealMe®


Alert