DEAL IN FARMS

Evening Star, Issue 19298, 10 July 1926, Page 12

DEAL IN FARMS

WAS THERE BISREPBESEKTATIOIH? HIS HOWS SCATHIHG COMMENT SHALE v. SAMSON. Tlio farm exchange case, which entered on its fourth day yesterday, was continued before Mr Justice sum yesterday. The action is one in which Sidney Howard Shale, of CTliristchurch, claims heavy damages against James Martin Samson, land agent, of Dun©din, in respect to an exchange of plaintiff’s sheep nin, known as Glenleo, tor defendant's farm properties at Awnrua and Norwood. Air F. B. Adams appeared for plaintiff and Mr A. IDonnelly and Air W. G. Hay represented the defendant. Mr Hay, who opened the easo for the defence, said that the plaintiff asked for a recission of the deal he had entered into on the grounds ot fraudulent representation. "ho defence would deny this, as it was claimed that plaintiff know the position. 1 e evidence to the contrary was absolutely grotesque. The defendant would give evidence to show that he had got tho worst of the deal. His Honor: Why did he resist rescission, then? Counsel said that a very serious charge of fraud had been brought against him, and ho could not consider any rescission until that was disposed of. Air Hay contended that plaintiff quite well knew what he was going in for, as he tried to dispose of the properties to other people. Air Samson did not earn his living by farming, and the deals lie entered into were purely speculative. Ho simply kept Awarua in order to improve the property. The Norwood property was in a very bad condition when he took possession in August, 1922. That place had cost him over £13,000. He was prepared to exchange his properties for Glonlee on the, basis of what they had cost him. When the Shales obtained Glenlee they must have .known. tbe_ experience of those who had been ruined on it. If the place was sold for £15,000, and its value was much greater, ho could not understand why the sheep farmers of New Zealand had let it go. The price had increased in eighteen months by £IB,OOO. The Shales evidently found themselves faced with a very big expenditure for stock, and they must have known that tho place bad a’ very bad reputation as far as tho loss of sheep was concerned, counsel quoting instances of the losses sustained by tho Shales and Samson. Tho Shales had to get clear of it, and ultimately Mr Samson got it. Sidney Shale at first would not consider tho Awarua.property, but later on Sidney and Charlie accompanied Mr Samson, and after that inspection they must have _ known what they were buying. Harrington, who had been employed by plaintiff as manager, would tell His Honor that _ the place had been thoroughly discussed in July. They did not say anything about misrepresentation then, but tried to sell the place to Dr Fox, and then to a man named Dickson, and later to Air Andrews. Anyone who saw the place must have known that it would not carry 2,000 sheep. The Shales wanted an alteration in the deal as soon as it was made. On November 18 a definite notice was sent to the Shales about a shearing muster at Glenlee, but Sidney Shale went to Dunedin to discuss the matter of rescission with hie solicitor. Dealing with the alleged misrepresentation, counsel said that Samson had never instructed Cook to state that the Awarua farm would carry ”2,000 sheep. His Honor: There is a definite statement uudcr_ Mr Samson’s signature to the effect that the place would carry 2,000 sheep. Is there a definite suggestion of forgery as far as Air Cook is concerned? Mr Hay: Air Samson will eay that he did not instruct Air Cook to make such a statement. His Honor: Do you suggest that Cook drew on his imagination? There is a statement under Samson’s own signature to the effect that the place would carry 2,000 sheep and cattle. I suppose the statements made were so ridiculous that no one would accept them? Mr Hay: Yes. His Honor also pointed out that it had been represented that Norwood would carry 900 ewes. Mr Hay: It is true that there were 900 sheep on the place, but they were not all ewes. s His Honor: I suppose your case is that the statements made were such palpable lies that no one would believe them? Mr Hay said it was denied that there was any deception or any misrepresentation. His Honor: It appears that in an exchange ti'ansaction no one believes what anyone says, and that no one believes anything unless the statement is corroborated ? Mr Hay: I would not go as far as that. His Honor: You mean that the whole exchange business is a game of cheats? Counsel again denied that there had been any misrepresentation. Has Honor: There was the written statement which the Shales were entitled to believe until they went down and found they were not true. William John Morton Hopkins, sheep farmer and valuer, said he had over thirty years’ experience. He valued this Glenlee property at, roughly, £6,900, with the fences in. With the Stock the total valuation was £17,232 in June of last year. It was suitable country for merino sheep. It could not have been worth £28,000, let alone £35,000, in 1925. Witness inspected the Norwood property, and valued it at £11,842 10s. It could be developed to carry a ewe an acre. To Air Adams: Witness was a land agent at one time, and at another a shopkeeper. He had gone in a good deal for land speculation, and was for some years at the head of a syndicate which bought large estates. That syndicate included such well-known men as the Bowron-Smith combination. Witness thought that A. C. Macrae’s valuation of £16,250 in 1923 was verv high. Eg did not think Glenlee was worth anything at to-day’s values. The bulk of too sheep runs in the dominion Were showing losses. Mr Adams: Would you “sell” your aheep run for nothing? Witness: No. I would sell it to you for what it cost me, or perhaps a little Jess for cash. Air Adams: Won’t you “sell it for nothing for cash?” Witness: No; but I will sell you one that cost me £14,000 for £3,000. Air Adams: Unfortunately I have no finance. Witness thought that it would cost £3£oo a year to run Glenlee. His Honor; I notice you have charged interest to working expenses. That is the first I have heard of anyone doing that. Witness srid that the farm was never worth £20,000. John George Armstrong said he was for twenty-four years in He Marlborough district, adjacent to Glonlee. He went over Glenlee with Alessrs Hopkins, Kelly, and Withell, and made a valuation] His total valuation was £13,942. The sheep on tho property were a mixed lot. He said he had had a look at the Norwood property, and valued it at £8 5s per acre or £10,997 in all. Ho considered that under proper management it would carry 1,100 owes. There should have been 100 acres put in turnips last season. To Air Adams: He did nob think Norwood was ever worth £20,000. If asked jo include the expense of working 5 it

would cost 12s per head to carry sheep on Norwood. Witness said he had had no experience of high country like Glenlee He did not agree with Air Hopkins that that land had depreciated in value since 1915. It would probably be harder to sell. He had hoard the evidence of Air Teschornaker and tho two witnesses who followed him, and he did not agree with them. He did not think there should he more than 4,000 sheep on Glenleo. The property would not return any profit for a period of five years. The court then adjourned till 10 ami. on Monday.