RESCISSION OF CONTRACT.

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

RESCISSION OF CONTRACT.

ALLEGED FRAUDULENT DEALINGS. TWO FARMS IN DISPUTE. A claim for rescission of a contract,alleged misrepresentation, and alleged fraud, was commenced in the Supreme Court before Mr. Justice Alpers this morning. The case was one in which Allan Thomson Ariell, farmer, of Paparoa (Mr. Hall Skelton) sued Simon Newport Clark, farmer, of Okaikai (Mr. Blomfield) for the rescission of a contract, the sum of £385, and damages amounting to £300. A counter-claim was entered by defendant for the sum of £428 damages. For the plaintiff it was stated that on April 19, 1924, he entered into an agreement, in writing, with defendant, for the purchase of a farm at Puheti, and one at Ohaeawai. It was alleged that defendant represented that the farm at Puheti contained 400 acres in grass and carried 400 sheep, and that the farm at Ohaea- ! wai was represented to contain 12 acres, fenced and grassed. The plaintiff was ; induced to make the agreement, and on i May 23, 1924, he took possession of the ; farms. It was claimed that the reprei sentations were fraudulent. I For the defendant it was stated that - the place at Ohaeawai was not reprer sented to be a farm. It was only a sec--3 tion. It was contended that plaintiff entered into the agreement after fully ) inspecting the lands, and that the contract was an unconditional one, and not 5 induced by any representations or 1 warranty. If any representations had ; been made they were only expressions of - opinion, and made in good faith.

In the matter of the counter-claim, defendant stated that plaintiff had partially demolished a large shed on tiie farm at Puheti, and had purchased a large number of stock and sheep, and that he had allowed tlie property to depreciate in value and go back to fern. The plaintiff submitted that any alterations that had been made to the house had been done to improve the place. He denied that the laud had depreciated or that he had allowed it to do so. In evidence, plaintiff stated that it had been represented that the farm at Puheti contained 400 acres in grass, but it only consisted of 207 acres in grass. He also found that the property at Ohaeawai consisted of only eight acres fenced in. The remaining four were in fern. (Proceeding.)