SALE OF A BUTCHERY BUSINESS

Gisborne Times, Volume XXXIII, Issue 3637, 25 September 1912, Page 5

SALE OF A BUTCHERY BUSINESS

CLAIM FOR SPECIFIC PERFORMANCE.

The attention of His Honor Mr Justice Chapman was occupied yesterday afternoon and last night with tho hearing of the case, the Gisborne Co-operative Meat Supply 00. v. Edmond Thomas Harries, a stock dealer, a claim for specific performance of an agreement of May 18, 1909, by exo cuting a transfer of interest in certain lands,'including Awapuni A2, sections 5 and T, inadvertently admitted from the said agreement; also £IOO damages for withholding the transfer.

Mr G. Stock appeared for the plaintiff and Mr Burnard for tlie defendant.

G. R. Wyllio stated that he remembered tho sale of the butchery business by the defendant and J. Maynard to the plaintiff company. In Harries’ case the sale included section 5, Awapuni, his shop and all his stock-in-trade with the exception of smallgoodis, casings, etc. The defendant was in the employ of the plaintiff company till November last year, and he knew certain improvements were being carried out on the section by the plaintiffs. He never objected to the buildings going up, and witness thought defendant never disputed that the land belonged to the plaintiff company, of which lie was the managing director. He knew that the defendant was speculating in cattle with Mr F. Hall, but he did not know, whether he used this paddock in connection with cattle so purchased. Defendant did not speak to tho company regarding his leasehold in the property. John Colley said that he arranged with*the plaintiffs to put up some boiling-down works on a paddock at Awapuni known as tho “long lease” paddock near section 5. Mr Maynard, defendant, and witness met on the section, but it was at defendant’s suggestion that it was put on the land in dispute. To Mr. Burnard: Just before Mr Maynard left he said that the company was not entitled to tho section. Other witnesses were called by Air Stock to show that tho section in dispute was included in tho property sold to plaintiff's when they purchased defendant’s business. For the defence, John Maynard stated that he was a manager and director of the company from July 1909 to October 31, 1911. There wore two town shops and generally he managed them. The late" Mr A. F. Kennedy liad been chairman of the directors. Prior to the formation of the company, he knew that it was proposed to purchase defendant’s and his own business. As a result of a conversation with defendant he saw Air Wyllio and Air Kennedy, and he dealt with Mr Kennedy in negotiating the sale of his business. During the first conversation he asked Air Kennedy what ho wanted for Ins plaoogand ho said £I3OO. Harris was ttfA get £IOOO. Later lie saw defendant, and defendant- said he was getting £I2OO, and witness objected to this and Air Kennedy advised him to put £2OO more on to liis business. Witness asked Air Kennedy if defendant had given anything else for the extra £2OO, and Air Kennedy replied that he had not. Witness said he thought that ho might have given the company his share of the lease of the big paddock, and .ho replied that it had nothing to do with that. Air Kennedy mentioned that defendant was keeping it for dealing. Witness, when manager of the company, engaged defendant as buyer and gave him permission to deal in stock though he never sold any to the company. He remembered when the boiling-down plant was put in. Just before the erection of a vat lie met the defendant and Colley on the ground, and it was then explained that if it was erected on an adjoining section and the owner died they would have no claim on the plant. Defendant said that they could put it up on his section and the company would not lose anything by _so doing. Witness always told the other directors they had* no right to the paddock. Witness later bought the section when lie was managing director of the company. The- defendant gave evidence as to acquiring tiic section —the subject oi tho dispute— about two years ago for stock he was dealing in with Air F. Kail. During the course of the negotiations for selling liis business he never agreed to sell it to the company. The managing director knew that when lie was buyer for the company he was permitted to deal privately. He remembered the interview with Messrs Colley and Maynard, and lie told the latter that the company could put the plant on the section and lie would never see them “had” for it. He would protect their interests; hut he thought they should pay the rent. Mr Kennedy 7 never assorted, that it was the property of plaintiffs and they received a list, of everything lie was selling to them. His Honor reserved judgment.