DISPUTED DEAL IN LAND.

New Zealand Herald, Volume XLIX, Issue 15001, 24 May 1912, Page 8

DISPUTED DEAL IN LAND.

... :■■ ■;;;■;■■ .;/...';■''-;; - : "" . v ,.;,,..^gN-,., ■„^y;^;w:^:;^^:^ ALLEGED USELESS PROPERTY. ■..';■; "-h ;'■;:''.,■,.;;■':.".'--■ ■■■■..',- : ;;■■-!! ■:>/.-I'.v:-:: - .; r --!*"rj <''■ '<■'■■ ! --- :^'4^: Hka3«no of the action, in which John Edward George Attwood claims £760 from John Suteliffe for alleged fraudulent misrepresentation over an exchange of land, was resumed at the Supreme Court yesterday before His >: Honor Mr- Justice Edwards and a common jury of 12. . - "" Farther cross-examined by Mr.' :: Cotter;'. plaintiff stated that .he could not swear to the date when the transaction was' ■com*- 1 pleted. In his opinion, there had, been some delay' in : preparing : &e; V: mortgage. He had, subsequent to discovering what the property was like, offered it for sale at £1 -per acre,- at -which price he would i be losing : money. "He had ; taken no action. against Suteliffe until sued'for the costs of the transfer. Until he took advice at this time, he, did not know he had. any remedy. He had no recollection of saying at any time that the land would be cheap at. 51 : 10B ij 'per acre. Suteliffe did ;: say ;at';. various times that he had let the land go, .. cheaply. '.:; : ■ '.:';...''.■'\ : -'.-..v-'. ■ Evidence. as .to . the nature' of the land was given by Rudolph Wilheha "Weber,'a' settler in the vicinity, who stated that he had known that portion of tbe oountiy since 1891. He said that it - waffl'''' , -: , «B*y : broken, in parts 'precipitous, the soil a kind of gravelly pipe-clay. The 'only kind of farming to which it was adapted waft , goat farming. . Corroboration of this was offered by Robert Bruce .Morpeth; ah employee' of Messrs. Wilson and Wflrton, of Whangaroii who had viewed the property in'company with the previous witness. '" ; . ;i Archibald Wallace, land agent, cave evidence to the effect that the. prehnoiiJ<aries of tho contract were gone through at.* his office. . Defendant remarked at the time that the property was a real' good thing, .Situated in theiCaeo .Valley, worth from £2 to £2,0 an acre. He had advised plain, tiff not to take the property without first seeing it. ■■-.:"■■ ~.;'- ■; : .;" " ■■■;..•■ . [Further hearing of the action .was adjourned until this morning."' *: ■ - :