(Gudgment for defendant)
Judgment was entered for the: defendant with costs by Sir Allan 'Mossop, Judge, in H. M. Supreme Court fon May 10 in the case Mrs. F. J. Pissarevsky versus Mr. E. B, McBain. Plaintit's claim was in' respect of und on "Hunglao Road, which the plaintiff agreed to purchase, and the defendant agreed to sell at a price of Tis, 3376 per mow. Plaintifr alleged that the defendant had agreed deliver the land in the month of 'November, 1984, but had failed to Geliver it, as' @ result of which plaintiff received no consideration for the payments, The _plaintift alleged that the land was mis-Meseribed by the defendant, thereby entailing additional expenditure 0 the plaintiff, to which she had not agreed.
"The claim was for the return of $19,208.64, as money paid on a consideration which had entirely failed alternatively a like sum as damages for the breach of contract; alterna tively rescission of the contract, and the return of this sum pald asa deposit upon the sale of land. Defen-ant denied the allegations, and enter-a counter-claim for $8,163.04, being the balance of the purchase price with Interest.
In his judgment, Judge Mossop said that the contract was contained oF to be inferred from certain letters dated April 4, 8 and 6, and May 17, 1084, and that up to May 17 the plain-tim knew that there had been no concluded contract, The defendant in his letter of Moy 17 said that he could not promise to deliver, the title deed to the land by "No-verbber, 194, and that it was quite Impossible to. promise any definite date in regard, to the resue thereof, The plaintiff; " therefore, would have been within her legal rights on May 17 to refuse to enter into the contract or to insist on time cing of the essence of the contract.
Plaintiff, however, took no action, accepted the documents then in possession of the defendant, and entered into occupation of the premises, The payments which she had made to then had not been made on the basis of a concluded contract, The Dalance of the purchase price was to be paid on delivery of the title deed.
September, 16%, plaintiff wrote to enquire concerning the. delivery of the title deed. She knew that the exact time of delivery of this document been left open. There was no ime fixed for completion, therefore A-reasonable time was inferred, The Judge said that he was, not Prepared to hold that the length of Ume it took to offer the title deed was an unreasonable time, and as a question of fact he held it was a reasonable time. ven It if were not 80 he said that any court would be bound to find waiver "against the Plaintiff on account of her subsequent conduct, 'The plaintiff had not satis-fled the court that there' was any breach of contract. There would, therefore, be judgment for the defendant on the claim with costs, and judgment with costs for. the @efendant on the counter-claim for specific performance and payment the balance of the purchase money the terms of the pleadings, Counsel in the cate were Messrs, "Menser for the plaintiff and SIR. Jones for the defendant, recklessly, and one of driving dan-Rerously." What he wanted to know was what pence his client wes being
for saying Mr, Haines:—What {s your ground Mr, Messor:—The ordinary method of taking out @ summons under the [Road Trafic Act, if you are using the same procedure as in England, ]would be to take out one summons under "Section 11, and another summons under Section 12. It the de-Hfendant is found not gullly of the [major offence, he may be found gullly fof the minor offence," Here, two summonses have been taken out under the: same section, Mr. Livingstone said that the two offences were quite separate, Mr. Haines held. that the police Jcould make @ complaint with regard to both of these offences.
Text read from the printed page and cleaned; old type leaves the occasional error.