LAW REPORTS.

Dominion, Volume 4, Issue 1072, 10 March 1911, Page 2

LAW REPORTS.

A LAND DEAL. MISREPRESENTATION ALLEGED. THE WAIKATO SWAMP. The hearing was continued yesterday of the case, Herbert Carter and James W. Body v. John W. Chapman, of Wellington, claim for a declaration of rescission of an agreement to purchase certain land in the AVaikato, also for the sum of .£507 16s. 4d., being alleged amount paid out of pocket by the plaintiffs.

Mr. T. M. Wilford appeared for plaintiffs, and Mr.'Gray, with him Mr. Tringham, for tho defendant.

The case occupied Mr. Justice Chapman the whole of yesterday.

Thomas Harman, farmer, Waikato. deposed that he had been shown, in Wellington, some remarkably fine examples of mangolds, turnins, carrots, onions, maize, and pumpkins which Mr. Chapman informed him were grown on tho land, which he had for sale. Chapman assured him (witness) that he was a "straightforward and honest man, and liked dealing with the straightforward men." Witness was so impressed that he expressed a desire to purchase 300 acres of the land, and proposed to sell his own farm at .Oounake, in order to uo so. It was then and there arranged that Harman should pay .£75 to Chapman for an option for four months, and, meanwhile, ho should go un and view the property. Should he, after examining the land, decide not to take it, the deposit was to be returned. Chaoman further told witness that the land would carry a cow to tho acre. Witness paid tho denosit. To Mr. Wilford: Ho was subsequently informed that some of the vegetables that had been shown had come from tho Waikato Winter Show. Witness, in the course of lengthy examination, gave details of his experience with Chapman when he went up to vieiv the land in company with Body, and of what occurred in the course of preliminary negotiations. Chapman, he stated, had told him that the "Telephone" road was under the control of the Kirikinroa Road Board. His evidence in other respects largely corroborated that given by James W. Body on tho previous day. Witness visited Body and Carter's property on July 30, 1910, and found that it was a swamp all over, the water being covered With greenish scum. To Mr. Gray: It. was true that, he had repudiated his..contract with- Chapman, and had an action pending against him. It was alsp'.true that he had little knowledge of swamp .land such as that in tho Waikato. '." .

At this' stage in the case Mr. Cracroft AYilson joined Mr. Wilson on plaintiffs' side.

Hugh Exfon, son of a neighbouring farmer, gave, corroborative evidence. His Honour, intimating that, he would be unable, to continue the case to-mor-row,. Mr. Wilford agreed that witnesses for the defence' coming from a distance should give their.evidence at that stage Mr. Gray called Frederick Forest, of Hamilton, a nurseryman, who had visited '. the '" land a week ago to see \vhaV, improvements could be, made on the, frontage of plaintiffs' property. There was no water on tho land then, and none even in tho drains. There was room for considerable improvement in tho drains. Witness had no experience of. bringing swampy land to cultivation, ~ In answer to Mr. Wilford, witness ad. mitted that-he'had not made.an.examination, of tho soil, but had merely taken a superficial view! He did not go right over, tho property,-, as ho had only; been asked to examine tho frontage. .In regard to Telephone! Road, witness 'considered that a vehicle could be driven,over it if one bridge, were replaced. David Cairns, farmer, Hukanni, also gave evidence to the effect that the land could be considerably improved.. Witness had been two years in the district,, and considered-that Body's land was worth moro than his (witness's) own. Previous to coming to.the Dominion seven years ago, witness had had experience as a land steward in Scotland.

William Geo. Robinson, farmer, Hillside, who had been farming air his life, stated that ho was leasing his property with the right 1 of purchase. He knew Carter and, Body's property, and did not consider that it was subject to floods. Body had told witness on one occasion that he (Body) considered that the section was the best on the block. On another occasion Body had advised witness not to put any, more .money .into .the property, as it was heavily mortgaged, and, if Chapman lost this case, witness would not get a title.

In answer to a question by Mr. Wilford, witness 1 admitted. that there was water on parts of 1 tho property in winter. At this r stage the case was adjourned until a dato to be fixed.