A LAND DEAL.

Dominion, Volume 4, Issue 1071, 9 March 1911, Page 8

A LAND DEAL.

DISAPPOINTMENT OF BUYERS, STRANGE STATEMENTS. ALLEGED MISEEPBESENTATION. Some very remarkable allegations were made in a case relating to the purchase of some AVnikalo swamp land, which was commenced in the Supremo Court yesterday before ill*. Justice Chapman. The case was brought by Herbert Cartel* and James V\, Body, against John W. Chapman, of "IVdlington. and was a claim for declaration of lawful reseision of an agreement to purchasu certain land iu the Waikato, and also for tho sum of X'so7 lGs. -Id., being the amount paid out of pocket by the plaintiffs. Mr. T. M. AVilford appeared for the plaintiffs, and Mr. Gray, with him Mr. Txingham, for the defendant. Mr. Wilford, in opening :for the plaintiffs, said that the action was founded upon three alleged misrepresentations. Under an agreement, dated February 14, 3910, defendant sold to plaintifi's certain land in the .AVaikat),. end the land was afterwards, by virtue of the agreement, taken possession of by the plaintiffs, and .occupied by them. The first cause of action alleged fraud. It was that mis-statements wc-re knowingly made. The second cause of action omitted fraud, and relied upon the contention that the misrepresentation of something material entitled, plaintiffs to reseision of the agreement. The first alleged misrepresentation was that defendant stated that the property fronted a public dedicated road, known as Telephone'Eoad; the second was that the defendant, before inducing the purchase, represented to the plaintiffs that the land was of such quality that if tho ti-tree which covered it- was burned off, grass would come up in three weeks, and cattle could be put on within six weeks; tho third was that he declared that the land was not subject to flood in winter or at any-time. In connection with the first point, the defence admittc.i the representation, except with regird tc the word "dedicated." Defendant had alleged that.the road was under 'he control of the Kirikiriroa Road Board, whereas if- would be proved that he must have known this was not correct. This w;as a material point, because, unless j laintiffs had the road frontage, the land vas useless to them. He would show that the defendant had had a good many people np .to look at the land, and that on each occasion lie took them over an "exhibition track" in one special, locality. A most remarkable thing was that his leg always broke down at a certain point, aud he had' to return home by one particular way, so that tho would-be purchaser never saw more than one chosen spot. In short, it was alleged that defendant started with misrepresentation, and ended with it.. Altogether he had succeeded in ruining about twentyeight- different people over the laud, of which it. would be shown not one single acre was worth anything at all. .

Viewing the Land. The first witness called was James William Body, ono of tho plaintiffs, who described himself as a mechanical fitter. In January, 191S, he discussed with defendant the purchase of the property, the other plaintiff being also present. Mr. Chapman assured them that tho Telephone Road was a public -dedicated road under the control of the Kirikiriroa Road Board, and stated that iwo adjoining properties wero being worked by a couple of tho best farmers in the Waikato. .One of these "farmers" was subsequently discovered to be a storekeeper at Newtown! . A statement the defendant made respecting the location of a creamery was also found to be quite untrue. In describing tho fertility of the soil, the defendant declared that lie had grown a paddock of maize which was so luxuriant that tvo men who went in to inspect it lost themselves, and had to bo assisted out. As a matter of fact, said the witness, it was impossible to grow maize anything like that. Defendant had also stated that the land was not liable to floods, emphasising his remarks bysaving: "If what I say is not true, may I never get olf this chair!" Another statement was that the land could be easily ploughed, but when they came to try it, the horse sank.in so far that half a day was occupied in digging it out! They went up to view the land early in February, and were taken round by Chapman. After inspecting some land —•which was afterwards found to belong to someone else—they got as far as a big Mne tree, when Chapman-said: "Well, boys. I .think we have gono far enough. My leg had gone on me n'ow." On the way back they passed over the reserve where tho public dedicated road was supposed to be. It was quite impa«able for vehicular traffic, and was Worked in three places bv gates across it. Pointing to the land, Chanman declared that grass would come up throe weeks after the ti-. tree was burned, and that stock could go on in s,ix weeks.

To his Honour: Chapman at no time pointed out the particular section that he was offering to witness and his partner. Plaintiffs as Farmers. The witness was further examined at considerable length regarding his subsequent experiences on tho land. He mentioned that ho had measured his frontage and found ho had only got 26 chains instead of the 415 chains ho had bargained for. When in Wellington on ono occasion ho charged Chapman with knowing that tho road was not dedicated at all. and a heated conversation ensued. Defendant burst out crying, and on leaving the house a littlo later said. "Good-bye, Body, old chap, and God bless you!" The land generally was peaty and very wet; in some places a man would "sink in up to his,knees. Grass would not grow on the place. Cross-examined: This was hi 3 first experience of, farming since his boyhood. During his first visit to view the land ho had made' 110 inquiries respecting it, because he knew nobody to inquire of. llis suspicions were first aroused by conversation with a neighbour. He lived on the property until .some timo in September, when he abandoned it so far as residence was concerned, and repudiated tho contract. Ho denied that lie had always expressed himself as being well, satisfied with the property; both ho and his partner had coudcmned it. Ho al.-o denied that lie had been looking for an excuse to got out of his bargain because ho could not succeed in working the place.

An Expert Witness. ( John Gordon,- farmer, who claimed intimate knowledge of Waikato land since IESG, said he was chairman of tho. Kirikiriroa Road Board, and had supervised tho laying out of all roads and drainage reserves in the district. He had sent sariiples of the soil material from the land involved in tho case for analysis in England. ■ Mr. Gray: What is the relevanco of this?

Mr. Wilfnrd: I am going to show that it will not grow anything but ti-treo and water.

Objections to tin; quoting nf outside analyf.es were uphold, and the witness was confined to expressions of his own opinion. Ho slid that tho land was worthless for growing anything. His opinion of it was that it was "nothing." It was lileo a sponge, and was so very poor that it had been given away in tho sale of the block. Xo public road had ever been laid off where tho Telephone Road was said to be. liven if the land was drained, ho believed nothing could be grown on it. Jt would not be true to say that if tho ti-tree was cleared grass would grow up in threo weeks. The land was subject to floods, and at other times it became very dry.

'•Cross-examined: For many years tho road was used freely by tho public, and tho company which used to own tho block had never taken any stops to close it. The case was adjourned until 10 a.m. to-day.