SALE OF A FARM.

Auckland Star, Volume LV, Issue 151, 27 June 1924, Page 3

SALE OF A FARM.

'alleged misrepresentation J I ! £3500 DAMAGES CLAIMED. I JURY FINDS FOR PLAINTIFF. I I JUDGMENT POSTPONED. I ; (Bγ Telegraph.—Own Correspondent.) HAMILTON, this day. I The ease in which Arthur Leonard and Grace Matilda Flyger, farmers, Rukuhia, sued Percy Arthur Herman, stockbroker, of Auckland, fur £;SOOO for alleged misrepresentation of a farm at Rulcuhia, was continued before Mr. Justice Herdman and a jury of 12, at Hamilton yesterday. Richard Humphreys, land agent, Hamilton, formerly local representative of Smith and Haleombe, said that during the inspection of the farm, Herman described it as one of the best in the district and said it was milking 126 dairy cows. He also pointed to a paddock which he said contained five acres of lucerne. Flyger asked witness which was the boundary, and Herman said to witness "tell him that is the boundary," pointing to a certain fence. Witness later pot I'Myger to agree to pay £55 an aero provided commission was reduced to £100. The deal was concluded at £G0 an acre, although it was written down at £48 10/ to avoid stamp duty. Plaintiff told Herman privately that he did not think the place would carry 120 dairy cows, but Herman practically told him to mind his own business and leave the matter to him. Witness practically induced plaintiff to take the farm on the representations made by defendant, j although he rather doubted the truth of these representations. Replying further to Mr. Northcroft, witness said it was not true that he had had a violent quarrel with Smith and I Ilalcombc. He had certainly had trouble lover getting his commissions. It was I true that he had handed certain private i correspondence with reference to deals, ! which were the property of the firm, over to Flyger's solicitor. "I considered that as I was manager I had a right to deal with the documents as I thought fit," said witness. A number of witnesses were called to show that the farm would carry only 50 dairy cows at the utmost. Percy Arthur Herman (the defendant), said that from March, 1021, till June, 1022, the place carried 154 head of cattle. There whs on the farm at the time three stacks of hay and some green feed. He spent a lot of money in development work, particularly at the back part. Defendant originally asked £50 an acre for tlio 104 acres, but the deal was made at £48 10/. It was a pure concoction, that a fictitious price was put on to save stamp duty. When he vacated the farm I the front portion would carry 70 dairy cows well. In tlio spring of 1021 he milked lio cows on the back portion of the farm. He never suggested that he would finance l-'lyger to the extent of £1000. He offered to go up to £600. j Evidence was also (riven that the j equities in the properties defendant had i received from plaintiff had depreciated j considerably. Judge's Summing Up. In addressing the jury, his Honor said that the case could be narrowed down to the allegations concerning the carrying ; capacity of the farm, since defendant had admitted that this was the only fact which induced him to buy. His Honor pointed out several inconsistencies in plaintiff's evidence. Dealing with the evidence given for plaintiff by the land I agent Humphreys, his Honor said that this witness had admitted having made ■an untruthful statement in order to I secure a commission of £100. This gave lan unpleasant atmosphere to the pro- ] ceedings. The property had also fallen off since plaintiff had taken possession. The issues put to the jury were:—Had defendant been guilty of fraud? If so, what damages' should be awarded to ■ plaintiff? The jury retired at midnight, and found defendant guilty of fraud and awarded £1004 damages. j Mr. Northcroft moved for a nonsuit !or alternatively for judgment. Tie asked I leave to apply for a new trial. I Mr. Luxford moved for judgment. ■ His Honor adjourned the case for further consideration under Rule 280. Leave .was granted to move for a new trial.