LAND AGENCY CASE.

Auckland Star, Volume LII, Issue 190, 11 August 1921, Page 5

LAND AGENCY CASE.

m ALLEGED MISREPRESENTATION. (By Telegraph.—Own Correspondent). HAMILTON, this day. { The hearing of the claim in which I Arthur Colwell Upham and Leslie Cameron sued Harry Frederick Saunders, land agent, for the return of £1200 deposit paid on the purchase of defendant's farm, near Te Aroha, interest on the amount, £000 damages, and 1 rescission of the contract to purchase 1 was concluded in the Supreme Court yesterday, before Mr. Justice Stringer and a common jury of 12. Saunders i entered a counter claim for specific per- ! formauce of the agreement, and lor j 1250 damages for non-fulfilment. ! Mr. E. H. Northeroft appeared for plaintiffs, and .Mr. 11. H. Ostler i". j defendant. ! At the conclusion of the evidence for ' the defence his Honir advised plaintiffs to withdraw all allegations of I fraud, which plaintiffs consented to do. ! His Honor said it seemed to him that plaintiffs gave their evidence very frankly and openly, and they appeared ito be above inventing for the purpose Jof bolstering up their ease. On the | other hand. Saunders' attitude in the ! case was not calculated to inspire the {rreatest confidence. It seemed to hi-j ...Honor a remarkable thing for a witness to go into the 'box and make a statement, and when cross-examined on it, to coolly remark, "Oh, well, cut it out."' las Saunders had done in regard to a ! statement he made. It appeared as I though he did not fully recognise his | duty to the Court or the jury. If he 1 was prepared to "cut it out," he should not have put it in. This, added his j Honor, appeared to 'be the attitude of j mind of lajid agents, and indicative of j the sort of statements made -when they j were trying to effect sales. He was not referring to this particular case, but it appeared to 'be part of the business of the land agent to make all sorts of statements to influence the sale of a property. They exaggerated the virtues and minimised the disadvantages. His Honor then submitted the followj ing issues to the jury: — » (1) Was it represented to plaintiffs I by defendant or his agent [ la) That there was a freehold area j of the farm to the westward of the Te Aroha Road, contain- ,- ing 108 acres? j l'b) That the 13 acres of leasehold ran along the entire northern boundary of the farm: (c) That the boundary of the leasehold portion of the farm was as a! shown on the plan prepared by .-! Mr. Farrar'r ej (2) If the answer is "Yes" to all or v any of these questions, were the plaind tiffs by reason of such representations I,j induced to purchase the property": «'. The jury returned after a few •3 minutes' retirement with affirmative n answers to "a" and "b", a negative to II "c," and an affirmative to question No. It "' d THE CONTRACT RESCINDED. >i I DEPOSIT TO ISE REPAID. s-1 ißy Telegraph—Press Association.) j HAMILTON, this din. j Jlis Honor ordered that, the contract, ■r ■ be rescinded, the defendants to repay the I amount of deposit, £1200. wit', interest a on that amount at 6\ per cent from the 'date of payment. He allowed a month I for repayment.'plaintiffs to account for (milk cheques received during the interim. 5 less £2 per week, which he would allow 3 Cameron as wages as caretaker from 1 April (i. Costs were also allowed plain- ' tiffs.