DISPUTED LAND DEAL.

New Zealand Herald, Volume XLIX, Issue 15002, 25 May 1912, Page 5

DISPUTED LAND DEAL.

SETTLED OUT OF COURT.

Ix the action, Attwood v. Sutcliffe, in which £750 was claimed for alleged fraudulent misrepresentation over an exchange of land, heard before Mr. Justice Edwards and a common jury of 12, the case for tho plaintiff was brought to a close yesterday morning. Evidence as to the acquirement of the property by defendant at four shillings per acre was given by William Ward Baker, who sold it to him. Harold George Dingle, a farmer, of Waikiekie, deposed that defendant offered to sell him the land in question, first at £1 per acre, later on at £1 10s per acre. Sutcliffe told him it was undulating country,' and good grazing land. He knew Sutcliffe had never seen it. • i:

In opening for the defence,' Mr.' Cotter said that the claim was based upon &■ number of alleged misrepresentations, which ho proposed to ' show defendant could not have made. He would endeavour to prove that certain facts had been taken for granted by plaintiff rather than alleged by defendant. Mr. Edmund Mahon&y, solicitor, who acted for both parties during the exchange was the first witness called for the defence. He said ho knew perfectly well that Sutcliffe had not seen th land. He was under the impression that Mr. Webster, the original vendor, also had not seen it. He asked plaintiff whether he had seen the property, and was answered in the negative. He then mentioned it as a curious circumstance that neither of the two previous owners had seen it. Ho told plaintiff (in the presence of defendant) he was "buying a pig in a poke" in making over his place at Otahuim and giving a mortgage over his new acquirement. He said, however, that if plaintiff was satisfied, he was sure that defendant was. Plaintiff replied, "It's all right, I was brought up on the land. I'll make a do of it." Defendant acquiesced in witness's remarks about the Bale, saying "I know nothing about the land. I bought it as a pig in a poke and I'm selling it a pig in a poke." Every effort was made to make the matter clear to plaintiff. To His Honor : Witness stated that he did hot - tell' Attwood that the price Sutcliffe paid was £100. Ho considered that in warning him against "buying a pig in a poke" and ascertaining he was satisfied with his bargain he had done all that was

necessary. ' His Honor said he had no desire to say anything to hurt Mr. Mahcmy's feelings, but it was his absolute duty to say that, however much he may have intended to do his duty to his client, Mr. Mahony did not do iv. It was Mr. Mahony's plain duty to tell his client that the property he was acquiring had been bought, a few weeks before for £100. Under the circumstances no man could act for both parties. What Mr. Mahony really should have done was to have warned the plaintiff definitely, and in writing, that ,the contract" was an inequitable one. Mr. Mahony said that during the luncheon adjournment he consulted two of the leading members of the profession in Auckland, and they told him the practice was-—•

His Honor : I don't want to hear any account of your conversations with them. The public will say that I am doing no more than my duty if, when standing between the public and the profession, and I find a member of the profession at fault, I say so most unequivocally. -Mr. Cotter asked leave to explain, as throwing light upon the equity or inequity of the contract, that an offer had been received for the property for practically the value of the consideration plaintiff gave for it. °

His Honor : Possibly from someone who knows nothing of it. Mr. Cotter: From a man, Your Honor, who has lived in the vicinity for over 20 yeard, and who has grazed horses upon it. ■"-.-'

It was announced that the parties had come to a settlement, that tho action would, therefore, not' be proceeded with.