DOWN ON THE FARM

NZ Truth, 15 March 1924, Page 7

DOWN ON THE FARM

, » rFact And Fancy Claim for False Representation Fails. (From "Truth's"' Auckland Rep.) A sparkling stream, trout jumping, hundreds of acres of green grass, everything lovely on the farm! This was the picture shown to dad Walter Savill and one of his sons, when they went from Kaikohe to Oropi (near Tauranga) to inspect the prpoerty Archibald Admore was offering for sale. But alas they were looking at the wrong place, and soon after entering upon farming life they repented having exchanged for the property their store at Kaikohe. Accordingly, on the grounds that they had been deceived, they brought an action against Admore to recover £2000 damages. The case came before Judge Herdman at the Supreme Court' at Auckland, Lawyer Hall Skelton appearing for the plaintiffs and Lawytrs McVeagh and Guy for tha defendant. «■- --NOT AS THEY THOUGHT. In 1919 the plaintiff j agreed to, exchange their store for the property, paying an equity of £289. It was stated, said counsel, that the mortgage for £1200 On the farm was due m about 18 months but plaintiffs found that it was due m five. The property was also represented to be wellwatered, but plaintiffs had to drive their cows a mile nlrht and morning to give them a drink. It -ft «.s also found that instead of there" being only 200 of the 683 acres m bush there were actually 400 acres, arid the 200 aores of grassland dwindled down to ten. The plaintiffs contended that they had been informed that the fawn had a carrying capacity of 40 dairy cows or 200 young cattle but they alleged that it would not carry more than 10 cattle running m the bush. The property was also described as ring-fenced, but there were only portions of fences and these were .mostly on the ground and burnt. The timber which, it was stated, was represented to be worth from £2000 to £8000 was only worth from £300 to £410 m 1919. The property was described by Charles S. Kensington, a life-long resident of the district, as being In .he centre of the cattle-sickness area. In 1919 the prope- ty might have carried about 100 rough head of cattle which would have to be driven about a mile and a half to drink. When plaintiffs bought the place most of the fences were down and covered with fern. Blackberry, ragwort and Canadian thistle were among the noxious weeds enumerated by witness who went on to say that some 10 or 12 years ago about 173 aores were cleared but these subsequently degenerated "i into the noxious weed state. There had never been 200 acres of grass, and hiß estimate of the timber last November was 1,460,000. feet whloh he reckoned to be worth £410. "c put a valuation of 10/-. an acre on the land. William Darragh, who at one time leased plaintiffs farm for three months, said that the property had never been ring-fenced and cattle-proof as long as he had known it, He would not attempt to milk more than 12 dairy cows on the place. DEFENDANT'S SHORT TENANCY. The complexion given to the case by Mr. McVeagh was that Admore did not know the property properly. He acquired the farm ahout October, 1919, and shortly afterwards put it into Dalgety's hand for sale. Savill, senr. and one of his sons went down with Dalgety's representative to have a look at the place but none of the party knew whore it was, a resident of the district eventually showing them various points. Subsequently Dalgety's agent drew plaintiffs' attention tp the fact that there were obnoxious weeds. It was not until about three months after the deal had gone through that plaintiffs began to talk of misrepresentation. The name of Oropi, said his Honor m summing up, would be tattoed upon the Jurors' memories after the four long days which had been taken up with the case. Had lt been established that there had been dishonesty? Admore Intimated that he knew nothing of the property. The information supplied to Dalgety's was obtained from tho previous owner. The, plaintiffs could havo ascertained for themselves if they had looked whether It was properly watered and fenced and could havo observed the noxious weeds. Savill, senr., had endeavoured to re- sell a higher price, and that after he had discovered the alleged fraud.- In the authorities to sell he spoke of the farm as being ring- fenced and well- watered and used a number of the representations which he himself complained were untrue. The jury found that one representation was made, namely that the property carried timber worth from £2000 to £3000. There was no false or fraudulent representation. Judgment for the defendant with costs was entered accordingly by his Honor.