A PROPERTY EXCHANGE.

Auckland Star, Volume LVI, Issue 218, 15 September 1925, Page 7

A PROPERTY EXCHANGE.

CLAIM AGAINST AGENT. (By Telegraph—Own Correspondent.) HAMILTON, this day. A case, involving a claim for £16,000 damages for alleged misrepresentation, was commenced at the Hamilton Supremo Court to-day before Mr. Justice Herdman, in which William Allen Paterson, farmer of Te Rapa, and Jane Paterson, spinster, of Auckland, brought suit against Frederick Charles Hand, land agent, formerly of Auckland, for alleged misrepresentation. Mr. A. W. Blair (Wellington) and with him Mr. H. D. C. Adams (Hamilton), appeared for plaintiffs, and Mr. G. P. Finlay (Auckland) for defendant. The statement of claim set out that in December, 1920, plaintiffs owned a farm and stock at Te Poi, near Matamata, the equity of which, with the stock, was valued at £12,150. Defendant at the time was carrying on business as a land agent at Hamilton under the name: "Farmers' Land Agency, C 0.," one, A. E. Whitaker, being manager of the business or a partner with defendant. In December, 1920, defendant caused to be inserted in the "Waikato Times" an advertisement setting out that they had for disposal £18,000 on first mortgage. Defendant represented to plaintiffs that the mortgage represented the balance of purchase money on a property comprising 1000 acres which he. defendant, gold for £40.000. thus showing a margin of £22,000 security for the mortgage of £18.000. Defendant also impressed upon plaintiffs that the mortgage was a first-class and safe security in every respect. On these representations plaintiffs agreed to exchange the equity of their farm, together with stock, for the mortgage , referred to. Plaintiffs' farm and stock , were taken over at £12.150, £500 being , paid b y the purchasers in cash. The bah ance £6000. representing the remaining J difference between the value of plaintiffs' . farm and the mortgage of £17.150 was . provided by Idain Jiffs' giving f su.b-mo.rt"----f gage secured unon the original mort- . pace. Plaintiffs wore thus rendered , liable on a personal covenant in the \ sub-mortgage to repay the £6000 and . interest. Throughout the negotiations lit was represented to plaintiffs that these arrangements did not in any way . prejudice their position.• in that" they ; would be receiving the whole of the I interest «n £17,650 mortgage. and r they would be accountable only for a - portion thereof to the sub-morts-ase. . Plaintiffs, believing defendant's state- » ment that the morteasrp represented a t cash margin of £22.000 on the sale 1 of the property for £40.000 made no i inquiry in rc<rard to the value of the 5 property. Plaintiffs by reason of al- . leered acts of defendant lost the value r of their farm nnd stock valued at r £12.130. Tn addition thereto had lost i £3000 in interest, and paid travelling, j leeal and other expenses incurred in > endeavouring to retrieve their loss hy 2 disposing of the property. Alternatively - the statement claimed that defendant, > as a paid land agent of the plaintiffs, > owed them a duty in disposing of their farm to the best possible advantage. On i a further alternative claim plaintiffs / said they paid defendant £6000 in pon--1 slderation of his not exercising the ; power of sale for two months. However, r within five weeks he exercised his right. The case is proceeding : In the case of Collins v. Earner, board 1 yesterday, after the judge heard the respective arguments he entered judgment for defendant with costs.