A FARM DISPUTE.

Auckland Star, Volume LV, Issue 114, 15 May 1924, Page 7

A FARM DISPUTE.

DELAY IN ACCESS.

BUYER CLAIMS DAMAGES.

Thomas Christian Mikkelsen, of Otamarakau, farmer, was the plaintiff, and ' Edith Emma Sykee, wife of George Sykes, farmer, of Otangihaku, defendant in an action at the Supreme Court today in which over £500 damages were claimed under various beadsThe case for plain till was that in February, 1919, he purchased a farm of 147 acres for £2138 15/ from defendant and Harriet Emma Skipper. There was no access by road to the farm, and the vendors agreed to provide legal access by public road from an existing public road within twelve months from date of purchase across an adjoining property owned by Harris and Crawford. Plaintiff repeatedly demanded the fulfilment of the agreemnt in respect of the road, afid a road was completed in 1921, but it had not yet 'been dedicated. Plaintiff claimed that by reason of the delay in providing access he had suffered "great loss, damage) expense, and inconvenience," and had been prevented from working the farm to the best advantage. Part of the expense ( £58 11/) was incurred by I consulting legal opinion, and in commencing an action for an order decreeing specific performance, which necessitated several trips to Te Puke and Auckland. Also, through inability to obtain title to the land, he had been unable to get financial assistance to develop the farm, which had deteriorated, and was unable to carry the number of stock it should. A number of inconveniences and losses allegedly due to defendant's delay in granting access and title were narrated. The defence was a denial that there was no access- The agreement was admitted, but it was claimed that this wii; an agrement between the then owners of the said land and did not bind subsequent owners. The statement that access iwas promised over the land described was denied. Defendant denied ■being the assignee of the vendor parties,! and said that, even if she were, she was not bound by the agreement to provide access. She admitted having completed a road giving necess to the property in. November 1921, but denied that this was done in pursuance of any agreement to which either nho or plaintiff were parties. Liability for delay was repudiated, and it was disputed that plaintiff had suffered any. appreciable los 3or inconvenience, or that he had been pre-: vented from working the farm to the i best advantage. Also, plaintiff ha:l; never applied to the vendor parties. ; Mr. Richmond appeared for plaintiff, | and Mr. Hogben (instructed by Messrs. j Fraser and Harron, of Whakatane) for the defendant.