THE COURTS.

Press, Volume LVI, Issue 16850, 2 June 1920, Page 4

THE COURTS.

SUPREME COURT. CIVIL SITTINGS. ■ (Before bis Honour Mr Justice Ilerdaiari.i ALLEGED MISHEPRKSBNTATIOX. Tho action in which Dona:d_ Clark iMr A. T. Donr.elly), a returned eoidier, clsimeu £1800 from Hobert Fanny Parker (Mr rpham) as damages in res?£ct o: alleged faljo and fraudulent representations _ rc?ar«ing a farm at Burnham. sold by deiendants to plaintiff, was resumed yesterday morning" before a jury cf twelve, o: which Mr V*. ITBallir.ger was foreman. Mr Upham. oper.in? for the del'ence. outlined the evidence to bo called, and stated that defendants originally the farm for £12 15s cer acre —it was certainly an esbut "there was no reason to question that "the value of the property given by M'r-3 Parker represented that amount. For four years the Parkers—four persons—had lived on the farm, and paid their way and a little beside. In 191 C the farm was valued, for the pu~posc of making an advance, at £12 10f. per acre. There had been a large mob c£ sheep carried on the farm from May Ist. 1019, to tbe middle cf Ancuet, 1010: nnd what Parker stated was thai the nmr.b'r ;ikiition«<l had been on the place for the Lost p-.'rt of tbe winter. H. C. Livinrstone, land agent, stated that the farm was placed in Lis hai'.ds for sale b - Talker on June 2tth. 1919: ths particulars he ms given were: "tSß'i orres, situated Aylesbury district, on the BurnhamGreerdale road, about three miles from Dunsandel; price .£ll per acre: house of five room:-, ti*ve- c '.alled stable. chafihov.;e, and other ' sheds: fences of gorse; 9 paddocks, well watered by water races: grows good osts. turnip, rap?, etc.: good fattening l" ncl: ,£HCO mortgago at 5V per ccnt.; cash above mortgage, or terms would be arranged." Parker did not give any information a» to the land's carrying capacity, but hud witness to see the land for himself. He gave details regarding the visit of iuspecticu to tho farm. The place to very, very rough, witnet-s stated, and the liouce, though sound, looked as if it had been unoccupied for years. Plaintiff remarked to him on the rotten state of tbo farm, and sai.i that it would take three years to put it in order—an opinion with which witness concurred. Just be!cio leaving lho farm Mr Chirk, sen., got a piece of iron and scraped a hole, remarking that tho coil "wasn't no bnd." Xo indication was given witness that the Clarks did not intend buying the plac« until after they had tea »'t Holleston; at that place plaintiff had spoken with, a man, and witness surmissd that tho man had put plaintiff off buying tho place. The same afternoon witness introduced Parker to Mr and Mrs Clark at his (witness's) office. Witnes3 told ib* Claris! that Parker said that the man at Koliepton waa probably u man named Hsek, who deeired to leare the" farm himself, and that put u, different complexion on things. Witn?s3 suggested that plaintiff should be found, and should meet Parker, so that Parleer <iould tell him what the farm had done and could do. "Witness went off to find plaintiff, but failed to do ao till Inter. When witness returned to the office Mr Clark, senior, told witness that he had talked with PHrkar, and had deoided to recommend plaintiff to buy tbe farm; .he asked witnees to get his sou to meet him at tho office later. This wis done, but witness did not remember tho conversation between father and son; he' thought that very little was said, and as far ca he could remember it was just- a case of Mr Clark, sen., ramming the thing up by tolling his son that he had hod a conversation with Parker, and that he had decided to recommend tbo son to buy the farm. Last January witness saw Clark, sen., and asked him: "Was I present when Mr Parker made the statements to you as to the carrying capacity of the farm?" Mr Clark had answered : "Xn; you were not." To Mr Donnelly: He considered £13 per aero was n high price for the land; he would not say that it was <v very high price. He did not press plaintiff' to buy because he (witness) did not feel that' it waa a good farm. He considered that it was wholly on account of what Parker told the old people that they decided to buy. He would not contradict the Clarks when they stated thai the alleged false representations were made in his presence; nor was he prepared to contradict that he discussed tbe representations with plaiptiff before he signed the contract. He did not know tho history of the farm when he sold it. Robert Parker, one of ih<* defendants, slated that his wife exchanged 030 acrc* Government lease in tho Xorth Island for the farm; as far as he know no fictitious values were placed on either property. Ho had v.-o/k----ed the place as a mixed farm for four years, and had done very well,, though there had been, two very dry summers, and one winter when there was hail. At Livingstone's office, on August 21st, C'lurk, sen.; eaid to wittios3 that the placs was very bare, and witness replied: "What can you cxpect seeing that- 500 sheep beside cattle and horses were on it during tbe best part of the winter." Clark said that the grass all wanted renewing, and witness told him that there were 60 <icree that, did not require renewing; ho also told him that the land would grow oats, turnips, and rap 6, and that lie had sold oatsntSs per bushel in u dry season. When Clark, ecu., told him that ho had sold his farm of 1600 acres at C'ulverden to his two sons, witness thought that Clark, j sen., knew as much about farming .as he himself knew. Witness did not toll Clark, I sen., that there wero 000 sheep on the farm "since last shearing—ten months"; shearing was never mentioned. Witness denied that ho had said that the farm had carried 300 ewes through three dry seasons, and did the lambs well. When Livingstone submitted to him the contract for the sale to plaintiff, witness thought that -it was too onesided in favour of plaintiff. To Mr Donnelly: Prior. t 0 the sale to plaintiff witness was in negotiation with one Criglington for an exchange of properties; he did not toil Criglington the same os he told tue Clarks; he did not remember what ho told Crigiington: if Criglington said that be told him the same os he told the Clarks he would contradict him; Criglington told him that he knew tho country better then witness. The farm could be ma-de reductive by working it as a mixe-d farm. He did not know what to *ay. to Livingstone's statement that tbe Clark's bought the place on the strength cf what he (witness) told him. He thought that the Clarks bought on their own judgnieut. To his Honour: Livingstone told him, in front of the Clarks, that a man at I'oilcston had put them eff the deal. J. O. S. Wallace. land talesman for Messrs Harmiin and Steven?, stated that in July he took a returned soldier to inspect til? f,y-m ; there was a number: of sheep on it, and tho prospective buyer, a fanner, remarked that they we re in "good nick." The way land was selling just now it was. db'lcult to sa-y what the farm was worth; bis opinion was that it was' sometliing in the vicinity of £13 per acre. Herbert Jas. Mercer, farmer, Aylesbury, stated that if a man worked tlu. placa ia perfection U3 could make a yocd living at the' pric- paid by plr.ir.tifT." If properly worked it would carry i:0 ewe? and fatten, tha lambs; it would be iKecsiary to guiAgreen feed. He thought tho value of the land was £13 per ncre. In reply to his Honour witness gave details showing a revenue from tlu» farm of £750 or £350 per annum. He would put 30 acie6 in green feed, 20 acres in Jcod lor team and cow, and 30 or 10 acres in wheat.! lie would run 300 ewes an the plac». Tho wheat yield would be about 30 bushels to. the acre, and would bring £3£o: wool, £!20: and fat lambs (calculating on 00 per cent ) i £270.

Donald McLeod, farmer. "Weedons, stated that the* fa.rm would carry about on? theep to the acre; tho laud was worth £13 per acre.

[ Arthur Bailey, farmer, Holieston, • stated j that lie visited tie fiimi recently; it was in fairly good heart., but required mitivat,ing; thare was no feed (in it ,-:s there j ought to be.- He saw. about -JOJ sheep on j it,, and they were in vc.y good order. Iti capacity was 250 ewes; by putting ill o.\ I certain of preen fe«?d. it should : carry double. The way other properties were | goinjr, and taking productiveness into ;ic- • count, the farm \va3 worth £12 10s to £13 j per acre. | To Mr Donnelly: Probably pome of the j fences had not b<x-n cut for six or sevsn year?. Land on the plains required to be re-sown in s;rs<:.3every three'or four years; by the appearance of the ;yras= on the' farm, about half the area had not been ro-fo-.vn for fight or ten years; the green feed raised would pay for the re-sowing ot the jrraso. Joteph Ily. Deed, f-inn»r, Roiieston. estimated the value at £U'; it should carry one ewe to the acre. He shewed how a revenue of £572 per at:nun; could be obtained from the farm in its present condition. Samuel Harris, manacrev 'for .Mr D. Bates at Rolle3tou, said that llr Bates's land wjs wurtli £13 a-rid Parker's farm vras worth more. To Mr Donnelly: Parker's lanJ, in his estimation, was worth £15 or £IG. David Boyce, farmer and sia-uphterman, Templeton, stated that on Mav Cth last he inspected the farm a.nd &a.w 200 ewca; the? wero looking particularly wci— The land was worth £13 to £13 ss. To Mr Donnelly: If he were looking for land ha would be prepared to pay £13 p2r j acre for the farm, and guaranteed that in two" vears it would be worth £15 or £16. John S. Wallace, clerk. Railway Department. stated that he wa.> s*-ationn?ajster atRoller ton till October last, and about tlio I>:n:iir.c of May, 1315.. he £aw a little over jOO sheep on Parkers farm Edric Oibb Parker, sUngnwrmac. stated that * he ' had a- far™ his brother at* iiolieston. They lad als steep d'irin s tko

SMumer of 1916-19 which wcr» put. on his father's farm on May l*t. and remained there tili th • middle of August. S. E. Jeffs. manager of Mr A. H. Turnbull's iami at Kclleston. str.led that Parker's f.irm v.ms worth about £12 IPs per acre, for cropping. By cultivating it, the value cou'u bo raised £2 per acrc. ITe would put m 10!) acres of crop ;.r,d run about 200 ewes. To his J (enour witness detailed how lie (witness) could mak; a revenue o! £1305, and a net revonue of £;0o from the iarui. \ This iv3i the case for the defence. Counsel addressed tho jury. liii Konmr. gumming up, said tnst if :Ji* rej-'tessntations alWged to h.3\o been mad',' were made then they vera materifil to the extent that th«y vers assertions by an owner I" a pcssi'c-le purchaser es to what tho property was capable ei doing. It was for the jury to ssr whether the representation* wer.made, and if they were false and were kn:>wr> to bo false. Ir vi?w of tbe difference;? o'° opinion of expet'' p; to the valu" of the laud, the jury misht have difficulty in in*? Thev i-houl:l , oivider tbnt Ciudsell'o 'and adjoining was sob! fo- i'i-2 re- ccre and that it hsvn been 'jfticr condition than Parser's. Thoy sh-nld also :_*:ve consideration to the iUiteroev.* o ( * (Kmc of fa? vitnc»sc? tin' it would taV" about £3 wv pcre to pi:*, rark-?r's farm ir. good cor.difiin. >f*c" a retirement ot cvr nr. hour and n Im'i <1 •<? jury 'P.tunie:! with a vcivikt for plaintiff fir £715. J'idgnioat -wis ent?red vitli Th; Court adjourned ti'l 1C."0 s.:r.. toMAGISTERIAL Mr S. E. XtcCirthy, 0.M.) DKUXKEXXESS. A firet offonacr was couviclcd and di-;-char~ed and another for helpless dr.mLcn-r.c-ss v.'as ordered to pay medical f.vp-cn-.cs. in de.'auli. s:vcn dajs' imprisonment. IMPOKTAXT J UDGMEXT. Kescrved judgment was givea by his Wnrehiy in iha ci.scot John Smyth (police) v. John -May, the info: luution ihal tli; ddjudaut being the subject cf a proh.citiou order, did ■ enter licensed prerti'3:-:, to wit, the cutiide booth at the Addiujrtnn jacecouiae, during the existence cf a londitioiul license issued und-er th? Licatiein..? Act in icspect of -such booth. Altlicuch th.: defendant hs-.i pleaded guilty his Worship said he deained it advisable, keeping in viow contradictory judgments involved in this cas •, 10 its.irvc- his decision, wiih a vifv.tr of making an attempt to settle (he point. After griug hilly into the law or. the matter tils Worship said the net result was tlirt the plucc where liquor \va< authorised to L--> eol t pureuant to a conditional lie-use, was licensed premises within the mean in? <> r Section 215. If 'he conditional licensoo had a. jovirir coinmission to sell liquor pll over the land on which an occasional blithering war. be ins iuld, then a prohibited person could not erter any pait of that land. "Were the p'ae-? \vji«r« a conditional licensee could lawj'ndv seli liquor not licenfied prtjnises within th-"> m-aninJ of the Licensin™ Act prohibition orcUto would largely become a d;»d loiter 11 racing and such like dav=. Moreover, drnrkon ?ons and prostitutes could lawfully resort thereto, breaking public ordt>r contrary to the intention bf tho Licen»Act Hil l its amendments. - The defendant would be oonviete-l. but a« he mi?ht I.are beer, misled, by ill® varying decisions 1Ji?» fine would be limited lo Is and lie would b-3 ordered to ppy tlio costs.

IN OTHER FLACES. AUCKLAXD CTiIMIXAL . SESSIOXS. (TRESS ASSOCIATION TELEGRAM.)' AUCKLAXD, .Tune 1. At the Supreme C.nurt Gcoree Koussell, who was found guilty of attempted arson at Hiktirangi, wiih -a "strong recommendation to mercy on the ground that accused wan well behaved when solor, was sentenced to eighteen monili3' with hard labour.