BIG LAND DEAL.

Manawatu Times, Volume LXV, Issue 1868, 12 March 1913, Page 6

BIG LAND DEAL.

QUAS r JED BY THE JUDGE.

for, misrepresentation.

A magnificent Marton land deal, ' ivolving a purchase price of about £27,000, yesterday under a judgment of Sir Robert Stout crumbled to the ground. The parties to the case were the following Plaintiffs (the purchasers): J. A. Fraser, an Ashhurst settler; C. A. Loughnan, Crown Solicitor, at Palmerston North; and two others, the four acting as a syndicate. Defendant (the vendor): Frank Lionel Anderson, a Marton farmer. Sir John Findlay, K.C. (with Mr Baldwin) was for the plaintiffs and Mr H. R. Cooper (with Mr Rutherfurd) was for the defendant. The laud involved was an area of 609 acres at Marton, and the plaintiff syndicate had agreed to purchase it at £35 per acre. The first instalment was to be £2500, and of this sum the syndicate paid £ISOO. The claim now was for a return of this amount with interest and the cancellation of the agreement on the ground of misrepresentation on the part of the vendor. The vendor on the other hand counter-claimed for the unpaid balance of the first instalment. His Honor, in his judgment, said: —"The whole conflict between the two parties really turns on—(1) Whether the representations were made on the sale; and (2) if the representations were made, was the defendant responsible for them? In my opinion the evidence is clear that statements were made prior to the agreement fhat a certain part or the property had been sold —one part to Frederick Therkleston, another to a Mr Rosser—and that negotiations had been entered into that would leail to the sale of another part to a Mr Mudford. I believe the evidence of Loughnan, Lambert, and Fraser; and there is a letter signed by Lambert and Burgess, dated August 24, and delivered to Loughnan before the signed agreement, which in my opinion proves conclusively the representations alleged. Some attempt was made to show that the defendant was not responsible for this letter, as Lambert and Burgess were not his agents at the time. But Loughnan, in my

opinion, had a right to assume that what tne letter stated was true. He had no notice that these people had ceased to be the agents of the defendant, and they in fact had not.'' The judgment expresses His Honor's opinion that Therkleston was put forward by the defendant as a bona fide purchaser, though in fact, he was not such. The real purchaser was Anderson himself. It was clear that Loughnan and Fraser would not have bought if they had not thought that some people in the district had become bona fide purchasers. This gave a value to the land, and was of immense advantage in enabling it to be resold by the syndicate, as was their intention. As scon as Loughnan and the others became aware of the want of bona fides in the transaction, and of the absence of any agreements to purchase, they gave notice to the defendant rescinding the contract, and thereupon became entitled to get back their deposit on the ground of misrepresentation.

"I am of opinion," His Honor continued, "that the evvidence shows there was a misrepresentation, and the plaintiff therefore is entitled to recover the £1500; also interest from the date of payment. Judgment for the plaintiff, therefore, for £ISOO and £37 5s 3d for interest to the date of this judgment; costs according to scale on the amount recovered; witnesses' expenses and disbursements; second counsel £8 8s per day; £ls 15s for the second day. Judgment was for Fraser and Loughnan also on the counter-claim with £8 8s costs.