LEMON ORCHARD.

Auckland Star, Volume LXIII, Issue 290, 7 December 1932, Page 5

LEMON ORCHARD.

CLAIM FOR DAMAGES. DISEASE-INFECTED TREES. MISREPRESENTATION DENIED Alleging that a lemon orchard at Tatnanga he had purchased had been fraudulently misrepresented before be purchased it, John Richard Dacies Mannings orchardist, of Tauranga, brought an action for £1000 damages against Herbert Benjamin Mountfoit, company manager, Tauranga, at the Supreme Court this morning before Mr. Justice Smith. Mr. 11. O. Cooney appeared for plaintiff and Messrs. Haddow and Wallace for the defendant. In his statement of claim plaintiff set out that an agreement for the sale and purchase of the orchard was entered into on September 4, .1931, the purchase price being £1750. He paid a deposit of £SOO. During a visit of inspection to the orchard prior to the sale being made, plaintiff alleged, defendant represented the orchard as being a young and healthy one, and apart from two trees infected with lemon blotch—a disease plaintiff was told was easily cured —free from disease. These representations, plaintiff alleged, had been made by defendant or his agent fraudulently, or else recklessly. Plaintiff alleged that after taking possession he found that of 32:5 trees 114 were infected with the disease, and now claimed that the property was not worth £1750, but £750. He 'asked for £1000 general damages, being the difference in the price paid and the true value of the property at the time of the sale. He also asked for judgment tor £11 stamp duty. The defence denied the allegation of misrepresentation and said it was disclosed to plaintiff that certain trees were infected with bark blotch, red scale, or borer, ' but all were under treatment and control. Plaintiff had inspected the orchard and got advice. The history- of the orchard had been disclosed to plaintiff, but owing to his ignorance and neglect and failure to use ordinary care and follow instructions, he had allowed the orchard to deteriorate. The defence also claimed that the orchard, at the date of the sale, was reasonably worth £1750. No Previous Experience. In evidence the plaintiff said that prior to purchasing the orchard he had had no previous experience of lemon, growing, and he told defendant before the sale that he was relying solely upon his representations. Defendant had expressed the opinion that plaintiff would take £300 worth of lemons off the property in the first twelve ifibnths. After seven months plaintiff found that the orchard was practically worthless. Plaintiff had offered to settle for £1050, and there had subsequently been a verbal offer to accept £950 rather than go to | ( Court. I

His Honor said it seemed a pity the parties should embark upon a Supreme Court action when there was only an amount of £100 between them in the offers to settle. Cross-examined by Mr. Haddow, plaintiff said that it was in the month following his taking possession that he learned that many of the trees were diseased. Ho began to treat the trees as advised by a friend, and during the Christmas vacation of 1931 communicated with his solicitor. The first complaint ho made to defendant was in February last. At no time did he neglect the orchard, and he did not allow it to become overgrown with grass.