PROPERTY DEAL.

Auckland Star, Volume LXIII, Issue 226, 23 September 1932, Page 7

PROPERTY DEAL.

LAND AGENT'S EVIDENCE. COMMENT BY JUDGE. TESTIMONY NOT ACCEPTED. Some pungent comment regarding the conduct of an Auckland land agent during the course- of a deal in property was made in the Supreme Court to-day by Mr. Justice Smith. His Honor gave judgment in a case which had arisen out of an agreement for , the exchange of a farm and a town property. Bold Marchant, farmer, of Onevvhero, and James Howard Arnett, traveller, of Remuera, had signed an agreement to exchange Arnett's property in Portland Road for Marehant's farm at Onewhero. Arnett had refused to proceed with the deal, holding that it was subject to a further inspection, which had proved to be unsatisfactory. '. Marchant sought an order for specific performance of the agreement, and aekeel for £150 damages. Aruett alleged fraudulent representations regarding the carrying capacity of the farm and its nature. He counter-claimed for an order declaring the deed void. To-day his Honor gave judgment for Arnett with costs. In doing so, he reviewed at length the evidence which had been given during the two days of the hearing, and referred particularly? to the testimony of Frederick William Jones-Prosser, the land agent concerned in the deal. His Honor said he could not possibly accept Jones-Prosser's version of what had occurred in the house at Remuera when the deal was first discussed. He had said he did not remember a second discussion with the parties, whereas he had a very clear recollection of all other essential details. It had been sworn by Marchant that Jones-Proseer had paid him a shilling to bind the original option for exchange. "I think this must be one of the rare occasions in history when the shilling has been taken by a principal from his own agent," said his Honor. It was impossible to believe that the four witnesses who had given evidence on behalf of the defendant had been guilty o? deliberately inventing the 6tory they had told. On the facts,.said his Honor, he must come to the conclusion that the document was signed subject to the further condition as to inspection to which the witnesses for the defence had testified. Judgment for defendant was entered accordingly.