SALE OF STATION PROPERTY. SUPREME COURT ACTION. CLAIM AND COUNTER CLAIM The terms of an agreement dating as far back as November, 1905, relating to the sale of the Mount Celia Station, near Yunda mindera, in the North Coolgardie ,district was the subject of a law suit, which opened before Mr. Jnstice Rooth in the Supreme Court yesterday. There was both claim and a counterclaim in the action. In the -riginal claim the plaintiiff was Charles 'Robert Heppingstone and the defendant Robert John Stewart. In the counter claim brought by the latter. David Eedle Heppingstone was joined with Charles Robert Heppingstone. Mr. N. Keenan, KC, with him : Mr. Hubert Parker appeared for the plaintiff, Heppingstone; and Mr. R. R.. Pilkington K C., with him Mr. D. Hearder, for the de- fendant Stewart. The circumstances of the dispute were out lined by the plaintiff in his statement of claim as follows: By a written agreement dated November 24 1905, the plaintiff and his; partner, David Eedle Heppinigstone, agreed to sell. to the defendant all their right, title and interest in the Mount Celia Station, comprising all the improvements and all the stock depasturing on the sta tion, inclusive of 100 head of cattle and 26 horses, together with all the progeny there of, In pursuance of the agreement the sta tion was transferred to the defendant, who thereupon took possession of the premises and stock. Prior to the agreement being executed, however on November 16, 1905 the plaintiff and defendant entered into a written agreement by which the defendant agreed to allow the plaintiff to repurchase the half-interest in the Mt. Celia Station and stock for the sum of £1,000; .together with a half-share of all the improvements made by the defendant had charge. The plaintiff was to pay half of the improve ments and interest at the rate of £8 per cent on the money laid out by the defen- dant. The defendant on his part was to give an account of any sales during the term of the year, while that agreement was in existence, should the plaintiff desire to re- purchase, and on that condition the plain tiff entered into the written agreement of - November 24., The plaintiff withi. the . terms and. conditions of the agreement of November 16, 1905, notified the defendant of his intention to take advantage of the _;-.: conditions of repurchase, but the defendant -refused to resell. The plaintiff claimed an . rder setting aside the agreement of Novem her 24, 1905,?or, alternatively, a declaration that he was entitled to.a half-share. or in terest in the leases and stock and part nership business, an order directing the de fendant to execute all necessary transfers, an account of all sales of stock an order - requiring the defendant to pay the amount fod to be due to him, •nd, fnaL £a1,000 damages for breach of agreement, ?ade up of two sums of £500, representing, respec tively, loss on an offer received by the plain '"tiff ..for the purchase of his half-interest and estimated loss of profit from the sta The defendant denied that he had been a party to any agreement of repurchase, and - leaed further that the said alleged agree m~aent, if any, (1) was not in writing, the Statute of Frauds not. having been complied with; (2) was conditional upon the plain tiff carrying out his part of the agreement of Novemeber 24, 1905, which he had- not 'done; (3) was not a condition' of the plain tiff?? entering'into the agreement of Novem ber.'24, '1905. The defendant declared that plaintiff had never notified him- of his in 'tenSion to repurchase, and he-had never re fused-to resell, nor had he denied the plain tiff's -right to repurchase. The defendant stated, further, that he had never been . gin possession of the stock referred to in he agreement of November 24;'1905, orany part thereof. As a further and alternative defence, the defendant without.' admittng liability- brought into Court the sum of £5, •'.and said that that sum was sufficient to satisfy the plaintiff's claim. The defendant also. made a counter-claim • ait the plaintiff and his partner,.David S ,eHeppingstone. He said that. of the -r cattle and horses which he was to receive under thb aement of November 24 1905, S the plaintif and his partner had faied to ". ver 25 head of cattle and one horse. 'Prior to November 24, 1905, the defendant 'alleged, the plaintiff and his partner falsely and fraudulenly represented to him that - there was a.permanent supply of water in each of two wells upon the station suM • cigO for the purpose of watering all stock -:. upon the station. There was, however, no S. ch supply of water. In neither of the two wells was there permanent water. The plaintiff and his partner were, the defen dant contended, each of },em well aware ... that. this representation was false and -'-fia?udlent, or they made it recklessly in c:-: onscious ignorance of whethet it were true -.:.- t false. The defendant explained that he :.was induced by this representation to enter '.K li ,j 'the agreement of November 24, 1905, d:' to pay the sum of £2,500 for the sta tioa'and stock, whereas the actual value of th; e propeity sold under the agreement was . no more.than £2,000. Against the plain Stiff. and his partner, D. E. Heppingstone, he - elimed £312 los. damages for 25 head of cattle short delivered, and £20 for one - rae short delivered, and £500 damages for a,. lleged fraud in respect of the representa tion. regarding the water supply on the atation. . In att reply to thedefence theplaintiff said that if the agreement of November 16, 1905, were not inwriting, as alleged by the de fendant, which was denied, it was taken out of the Statute of Frands by reason of part p.erformns, the plaintiff having in con ' 'aidetion and as a condition and.term of 'the agreenenat executed, or caused to be -executed on his behalf, the agreement of November 24, 1905, and transferred to the defendant his interest in the leases and -'stock and given him possession of them. ; " With regard to the counterclaim, the plain tiff and D. E. Heppingsetone said that at " thetime the defendant took delivery of the stock it was mntually arranged that if , : there were any shortage on delivery of the stock compensation should be allowed to the defendant. They admitted there -was a shortage of four head of cattle and one horse mi respect of which they were willing , to :allow the defendant £44. , S - 'The Court was occupied practically.the --'whole of yesterda.y .wilth the examination - and crosm-enmintion of the plaintif. The hearindg of evidence will be resumed this - mormig. ari m n n'