INFUSION.

Auckland Star, Volume LXII, Issue 95, 23 April 1931, Page 8

INFUSION.

the impression they gained with regard to the peat depth was that when he told them they must gradually deepen the drains and must burn off the teatree down through the roots, which were from three to twelve inches deep. He said the resultant ash would take grass. He handed over without payment all implements left on the farm to the value of about £200 and also sent them two trucks of timber for fencing and bridging. From the time Scliultz took over until the receipt of the _ letter threatening proceedings, said witness, his relationship with Schultz had been most friendly. Witness denied that he told Schultz and Graedel not to tell anyone of the price they paid. He had told them to hold their own counsel, and advised them not to be too open in talking of the money they had. Witness regarded the statement that 30 or 40 acres could be brought in every two or three years as a fair one. This was being done by Arnold Biland on another farm on the swamp. Witness said the same drainage facilities were available to Schultz as to Biland. i Schultz was allowed 13 years in which to pay, which was a reasonable time to pay out of profits,. Witness Cross-examined. In answer to Mr. Swarbrick, witness said Schultz would have to drain through Glover's and Biland's farms in order to reach the outlet. No rights of way were provided in the deeds. Biland had brought in 30 acres by the end of the third year, while he had 60 acres sweetening and preparing for pastjire. Mr. Swarbrick: How many have Odlin and Co. brought in during the 14 or 16 years they have held the land? Witness said the company did not work the land from that standpoint. Thfey were merely preparing the ground to be brought in. He admitted that Odlin and Co. were financing Biland's improvements. He further admitted that his statement to Biland, sen., that the company was a trust company and prohibited by Government regulations from accepting less than one-third deposit did not accurately represent the position. i

His Honor: Why did yon call the company a trust company?

Witness said the company received various moneys for investment. He admitted that the statement in a letter to Biland, sen., that the property was taken over by his father 20 years ago was aleo incorrect.

His Honor: What do you mean by this trust company Mr. Odlin? I would like to know. You could have sold this land for any price you liked?- -Yes.

Witness said on genera] principle the company required one-third cash in its land deals.

(Proceeding.)