LAND AGENCY SUIT.

Auckland Star, Volume L, Issue 52, 1 March 1919, Page 5

LAND AGENCY SUIT.

CLAIM FOR £5,800 DAMAGES.

CASE FOR THE DEFENCE.

DENIAL OF MISREPRESENTATION.

Evidence for the defence was heard yesterday and to-day at the Supreme Court in the civil action, Brown Brothers, farmers, of Te Awamutu, v. Joseph Thornes, retired land agent, of Auckland, in which £5.800 damages is claimed for alleged misrepresentation in regard to the character and value of a farm at Gordonton, which the plaintiffs exchanged in 1910 through the defendant for a property owned and occupied by them at Opotiki. The case is being heard by Mr. Justice Cooper and a jury of 12.

A. A. E. Skelton, opening the case for the defendant, said that he proposed to call evidence as to the character of plaintoiffs' property at Opotiki, with the object of showing that they had good reason for wishing to get rid of it. He also proposed to show that they told an employee of the defendant that they wanted partly improved swamp country. When Thomas Brown inspected the Gordonton property in company with Cooper, the defendant's Hamilton representative, and McDonald, owner of the property, all the points on which Cooper afterwards wrote to the plaintiffs were fully discussed, and an agreement was drawn up, Brown taking it away with him. On the advice of Cooper, Brown consulted an adjoining owner named Chapman, who told him that the price of fl6 an acre was too high. The plaintiffs, said counsel, were calculating on inflated exchange values, not ordinary purchase values. They were evidently determined to go in for a series of exchanges. If they were dissatisfied they had any number of opportunities to cry off. They could even have sued Cooper and McDonald for misrepresentation. So far from acting on their alleged suspicions, they threatened to cry off unless the deal were completed by a certain date. They were warned that they could not expect to make much money the first year, and that both capital and hard work would be needed to bring the land into good order. The present action, said counsel, was undoubtedly an afterthought. Any. loss the plaintiffs had suffered was the result of their accepting advice from people who did not understand swamp land. He did not believe that they were as innocent as they would wish the jury to believe, . but were I shrewd men out to make money by means lof a scries of exchanges.

John W. Chapman, farmer, of Hamilton, said that he formerly owned a block of 10,500 acres, including the property in question. He received a telephone inquiry from Thomas Brown regarding the property. To this he replied that the land was all right, but would need capi- " tal to work it. Brown replied that he had £2000. Witness asked him if the transaction was a sale or exchange, and Brown said that it was the latter, and the value was reckoned at £16 an acre. Witness replied that it would be cheaper at half the price, meaning that he valued the land at about £8 an acre. The farm, said witness, had been drained and improved originally by a man named George Tanner, who within two J-ears was milking over 50 cows on it before he disposed of it. Subsequently the property changed hands several times, and was unoccupied for some years. He estimated its present 1 -value at £7 10/- to £8 an acre.

Lawrence H. McAlpine, farmer, of Morrinsville, said that he had had much experience with swamp country. He valued the property at £4750, including the buildings.

William Duncan, land valuer, of Auckland, estimated the value of the property at £4600.

Called to-day, Frank Cooper, defendant's Hamilton representative at the time of the transaction, detailed his dealings with the plaintiffs. He said that he took Thomas Brown over the property and gave *jim every encouragement to verify the statements made to him as to the quality of the land. He was prepared then to substantiate what he said oh the subject, whether orally or by letter, and he still stood by his statements. The case is proceeding.