Thank you for correcting the text in this article. Your corrections improve Papers Past searches for everyone. See the latest corrections.

This article contains searchable text which was automatically generated and may contain errors. Join the community and correct any errors you spot to help us improve Papers Past.

Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image

WARRANTY OF A FARM

In response to an urgent request, we reprint the following, though we may point out that when the case was heard we reproduced the main features of the evidence on both sides, and also gave* the effect of the judgment when it Avas subsequently delivered: Judgment in a case heard in the Supreme Court at New Plymouth in February last, in which Charlotte Benton sued Ellen Cressey foi the sum of £1000. has been delivered by his Honor Mr Justice Chapman. In his preamble the judge szyd. "This is an action for damages for fraudulent misrepresentation in connection with the sale of, a dairy farm of 54 acres near Hawera. The representation alleged is that the farm is of such carrying capacity that'it would pa&ture and maintain 33 cows besides horses and young stock. The price of the land was £75 per acre, or £4050. The sale took place on June 20, 191§. The evidence was contradictory. The purchase was effected for the plaintiff by her husband, and the alleged misrepresentation was made by a son of the defendant) who was her agent in connection with the sale." The judgment then traverses the evidence, and in conclusion says that the representation that the farm would carry 32 milking cows was in excess of the number of milking cows that the farm would carry, its real carrying capacity being probably about 25 in ordinary years. The representations of the son (H. E. Cressey) though loosely made, were not fraudulently made. The plaintiff's husbandj an experienced farmer, showed by his conduct in. making a misleading statement to the Maoris, and in expressions used by him, that he, was, when negotiating, endeavoring to form his own judgment as to the value of the farm, and that he did not implicitly accept Cressey's commendatory statements in the sense now put forward by the \ plaintiff. The judge found tihat such misrepresentations as were proved were' not fraudulently made and that the plaintiff could not recover. Judgment was given for defendant with costs as per scale. Mr W. R. Haselden (Hawera) represented plaintiff, and Mr C. B. Morison K.C. (Wellington), with him Mr A. H. Powell (Hawera) appeared for defendant.

Permanent link to this item

https://paperspast.natlib.govt.nz/newspapers/HNS19190424.2.18

Bibliographic details

Hawera & Normanby Star, Volume LXXVIII, Issue LXXVIII, 24 April 1919, Page 4

Word Count
368

WARRANTY OF A FARM Hawera & Normanby Star, Volume LXXVIII, Issue LXXVIII, 24 April 1919, Page 4

WARRANTY OF A FARM Hawera & Normanby Star, Volume LXXVIII, Issue LXXVIII, 24 April 1919, Page 4

Help

Log in or create a Papers Past website account

Use your Papers Past website account to correct newspaper text.

By creating and using this account you agree to our terms of use.

Log in with RealMe®

If you’ve used a RealMe login somewhere else, you can use it here too. If you don’t already have a username and password, just click Log in and you can choose to create one.


Log in again to continue your work

Your session has expired.

Log in again with RealMe®


Alert