Sale of Land for Fruit Farm
JURY'S REPLIES TO QUESTIONS (Bv Telegraph—Press Association.) AUCKLAND, Last Night. Allegations that worthless land near Kaeo had been sold to'a London architect in 1930 for the purposes of a fruit farm were the basis of a claim for £1144 damages heard in the Supreme Court. The claim was made by' Tom Walter Thornton, a farmer, of Matamata, against William Henry Ball, a former director of New Zealand Citrus Plantations, Ltd. Thornton agreed to purchase from the company 12J acres for £IOSO, of which he paid £7BO, and he claimed he had been induced to do so by false representations made on be half of the company by David Rufus Williams. The issues placed before the jury were: — Did Williams make any of the representations set out in the claim and, if so, were any untrue f ' ' Did he make them knowing them to be false and with ' the intention that plaintiff should act upon them? Was plaintiff induced by a'ny of the representations to buy the property? Was Williams an agent for the company in April and May, 1930, or was he a sub-agent of defendant? Did defendant know that there existed in the literature of the company any of the said representations? Did defendant received) per cent, in respect of the sale to plaintiff as commission or as remuneration for his general services? Was defendant aware of and did he acquiesce in or adopt any of th representations, if they were found to be false, at aJI material times with knowledge of their falsity or without belief in their truth? What damages if any was plaintiff entitled to? After a retirement of two hours the jury found on the issues that Williams was the agent of the company and that the payment made to defendant by the company was in the nature of a -commission. The answer to the remaining issues was in the affirmative. The jury found as a fact that plaintiff was entitled to the damages as claimed. Counsel for plaintiif atid for defendant both moved for judgment. The .Judge adjourned the applications until to-morrow, when legal argument will be submitted. His Honour will decide after hearing the argument whether the iiriding is for plaintiff or for defendant.
Permanent link to this item
https://paperspast.natlib.govt.nz/newspapers/HC19341201.2.7
Bibliographic details
Horowhenua Chronicle, 1 December 1934, Page 3
Word Count
377Sale of Land for Fruit Farm Horowhenua Chronicle, 1 December 1934, Page 3
Using This Item
NZME is the copyright owner for the Horowhenua Chronicle. You can reproduce in-copyright material from this newspaper for non-commercial use under a Creative Commons New Zealand BY-NC-SA licence . This newspaper is not available for commercial use without the consent of NZME. For advice on reproduction of out-of-copyright material from this newspaper, please refer to the Copyright guide.