ALLEGED MOSREPRESENTATION

Hawera & Normanby Star, Volume XLI, Issue XLI, 12 February 1921, Page 7

ALLEGED MOSREPRESENTATION

—♦— .' . CASE CONCERNING LAND AT MOKOIA. .... In the Supreme Court, New Plymouth, yesterday, hearing was continued j before Mr. Justice Hosking and a jury ot twelve of the case of G. H. Quinn (of Mokoia) v. Alfred B. Catchpole I (now of Ohaupo), .in which plaintiff alleged that defendant had fraudulently misrepresented the value of a farm he sold to Quinn. Plaintiff's claim was for ±.3528, as payment for loss and damages.. Mr. P. ODea appeared for plaintiff, and Mr. Brown (Wanganui) for defendant. Upon the Court resuming yesterday morning, plaintiff, under cross-examina-tion, said that at the Jtime of the negotiation he did not see, or hear of any written authority to the Loan and Mercantile from Mr. Catchpole to sell the farm. He found out by experience, and was also told, that the farm would hot carry the number of cows represented by defendant. The place had never looked as well since he took it over as it did at the time the purchase was m'ade.^ He thought the farm was dear enough, even if it would carry 45' cows. He admitted that before taking! possession of the. farm he gave it into lie Loan and Mercantile Company's' hands for sale, through Mr. Catchpole,! the carrying capacity being stated at from 35 to 40 cows and the once £98 per acre. The authority was signed, before the particulars were filled in,! witness trusting to Catchpole, junr.,.; who was familiar with the place. At the time of\ the negotiations for the sale of the farm defendant never showed witness any record of milk returns. He told him 4 .his returns were-gobd and his: test at the factory was always the' highest. 'Witness denied that.he had had feed going to waste during the whole season. , .. I In reexamination, plaintiff said the feed which it was suggested was going to waste was the danthonia, which the cattle would not touch. > , Evidence was also given by Louis F. Bell and James Baldwin, farmers, Mokoia, as to t,he quality of the farm in question. Both stated ,tbat Catchpole' s cattle bad broken into their places to get feed, which was better than that on defendant's place. I Mr. ODea put in an authority to! sell given by Catchpole 'to a land; agency, in which the price asked for' the property was £70, and later this, was altered to £85. ' ' j In opening the case for . defendant. I Mr. Brown said that before a verdict could be Vivien for plaintiff the" jury, must be convinced'that "the statements' given to plaintiff by defendant were laJse, that'"they were known, or ought to have been knowJi, to be false by de-1 •fendant, "and-also that they were part1 of the inducement to plaintiff to pur.chase the farm. Regarding the evidence as to values, Mr. Brown said' there were always a certain number in J the community who believed that things' were going ail wrong, or that/in the' case of Taranaki, land values were too i high. The jury had seen that type the previous day giving evidence for plaintiff. They were a valuable element in the community, but the sub- j ject was beside the point. ! His Honor: Plaintiff has got to show that the statements of Catchpole were fraudulently made.- Because a man purchased a farm for £50 which was actually worth only £40 he could not claim the difference,. That, was^iot the law. . — --.. j Defendant, Alfred Benjamin Catchpole, now living at Ohaupo, said he bought the farm in August, ,1914. It was then iri' a neglected state and he put in a large amount of improvement, including fencing, manuring, and clearing of gorse. The front „part of the farm (twenty-five acres) 'was much poorer than the back, and be} never used. iF For milking. When he gave- +*•<> statement to the Loan and Mercantile in June,l9l9, there were fifty head of stock on the farm—2B cows, 7 heifers, and* the balance was young stoqk, from the year before and horses.x The following spring was bad, with shortage of feed, and he had to sell some. at a sacrifice.; He started the season in August. 1919, with thirty-three cows, and- latej- he sold seven off, and .finished the season. with- twenty-eiglit. When land was selling well in the neighbour-7 hood he gave instructions to put up the _ price to £90. When Quinn came out to' the farm he was introduced by witness': "son. He said he thought the place would suit him quite well; that he had seen a number of others and it coni-j pared favourably with them. *The im-. pression witness gained was that Quinn would take the farm if he could get it at hip own price. In regard to figures, j he told Quinn that he had started the] season before". with thirty-three cows, j He told him that he. had carried fifty] head of stock the previous w-inter, andi also that this number had to be reduced in the spring' owing to shortage j of feed. Quinn had tried to;7 get from j witness a statement as to- what the! farm would carry. Witness did not give' him a definite answer, but told plaintiff! that with better methods of farming he; could carry wnsiderabiy more. His son told Quinn titat witness, had not worked tne farm to the best advantage. Neither witness nor iiis son suggested .that the farm wouid carry forty-hv'e cows. He had 'never milked thirty-five cows while on the farm himself. At the house witness handed to Quinn a memorandum: book containing iigiires as to the milk; returns for the last six , years, andj Quinn handed it to witness' son, asking him to make out the returns for the. last year; These came to* £470. De-' dilutions by the factory for share pay-j ments, butter and supplies would come! to another £80. He made £144 profit1 on dry stock. I Examined by Mr. ODea: He did not' ..know what he paid for the property, i as it was part exchange. He did not know whether it was £36 per acre or not. He was just making a living on the place,.and if his son Les said he had been doing well and did not need, to bother it was not correct. He ad-j mitted having signed an authority for Lynskey and Evans to sell, which said the farm had carried 50 grown cattle and horses, and he asked £130 per) acre for it as a going concern. He 1 had had it in the agents' hands for the. [ last three or four years. The place had', been quoted indirectly to two returned] soldiers at £70, but he denied ever hay I ing stated to a'neighbour that he did; not know how they were.going to get on at that price, as he coulud hardly make a "do" of it "at £36. Leslie W. Catchpole, son of defendant, said he had about 12 years' perI sonal experience of farming. He gave !an account of introducing Quinn to 1 several properties, none of which siiitI ed, and then witness suggested seeing i his father's farm, which they did. He : told Quinn that it carried 30 cows on : the back oart, but did not say it would ' milk 45." Shortly after the deal was completed Quinn expressed complete ' satisfaction with the f?rm. He gave ' witness authority to sell, stating Mrs. Quinn was in ill-health.. He .denied . that Quinn had asked him in Hawera I about "a statement made by his aunt, ' and said, "What about the forty-five ' cows I can milk?" Witness had been : over; tbe farm lately, and contended ; that some feed had been allowed tc ; go to waste. To Mr. ODea: He knew that his

father had not done so very well on the farm and had raised a third mortgage for £300 after being five years on tne place. This was, however., because his father had spent all the money he was making in * improvements. To Mr. Brown: At the time of the purchase / by Quinn' there was a good veal of talk about the price of butterfat for the coming season, and many prospective purchasers thought they [ were going to get 3s per lb and not'! r less than 2s 6d. For this reason many j people paid more for land than it was really worth. At 5.40 p.m. the Court adjourned' un- j til to-day. To suit the convenience of j the jury this case will not be resumed I till Monday.—From. New Plymouth I papers. j