OTAHCHU LAND CASE.

New Zealand Herald, Volume LI, Issue 15767, 16 November 1914, Page 3

OTAHCHU LAND CASE.

HEARING CONCLUDED.

VERDICT FOE PLAINTIFF,

JURY AWARDS £290.

The hearing of th© case in which George Bruce, farmer (Mr. H. P. Richmond), claimed from John Eugene McGee (Mr. J. R. Reed, K.C., and Mr. W. P. Endean) the sum of £549 15s, alleging misrepresentation in respect to a. land transaction at Otahuhu, concluded at the Supreme Court on Saturday afternoon, when the jury brought in a verdict for plaintiff for £290. His Honor Mr. Justice Cooper presided.

Counsel did not address the jury, but mutually agreed to place certain issues before it.

In summing up His Honor said that tho action was based on certain alleged falsa misrepresentations said to have been made by the defendant's agent. John Sutcliffe. The plaintiff's case was that the representations made with regard ■to the value of the property were made to induce the plaintiff to buy it, and had been made either recklessly," or with a knowledge that they were" untrue.

The issues were then put to the jurv, and were placed and answered in tho following manner:—

1. Were McCredie and Sutcliffe defendant's agents for the sale oi the property in question?— Yes. 2. Did John Sutcliffe represent to the plaintiff prior to the sale by the defendant to the plaintiff that there as a cottage in good order and repair on the said property?— Yes. 3. Was it "plain to the plaintiff on the view thereof that the cottage was net in good order and repair '--No. 4. Did John Sutcliffe represent to the plaintiff prior to such sale that such land and cottage could be let without difficulty for at least £1 per week?— Yes. 5. Did tho defendant personally make tho representation mentioned in paragraph 2, or was he aware prior to completion of th© contract that such representation had been made?— Yes, he was aware. 6. Did the defendant personally make the representation mentioned in paragraph 4, or was he aware prior to tha completion of the contract that such representation had been made?— Yes, he was aware.

7. Did the defendant, authorise the representation made in paragraph ' cr ' paragraph 4'—No. 8. Was the representation made in paragraph 2 false?— Yes. 9. Was the representation made in paragraph 4 false!— 10. Did John Sutcliffe honestly, on reasonable grounds, believe in the" truth of the representation referred to in para graph 2?— No. v 11. Did John Sutcliffe honestly, en reasonable grounds, believe to the "truth of the representation referred to in paragraph 4?— No. 12. Did the defendant honestly, on reasonable grounds, believe in the'truth of the representation referred to in paragraph 4?— * 13. Was the plaintiff ignorant of the value of the property at Otahuhu, and particularly the property the subject of this action?— Yes.

14. Did the plaintiff rely on his own judgment as to the letting' value of the property, or upon the representations of Sutcliffe and McCredie Upon the representations of Sutcliffe.

15. Did the plaintiff relv on his own judgment as to the condition of the property or upon the representations of butcliffe and McCredie?— to first part; yes, to second part. 16. Did the plaintiff inform the said Sutcliffe, or the said McCredie, that he was ignorant of the value of the said property, and that he relied on the statements of the said Sutcliffe and McCredie' ■ —Yes.

17. Was the said Sntcliffe acting within the scope of his authority in making the representation in paragraphs 2 and 4?— Yes (answer by direction of Judge). 18. Was the plaintiff induced by any, and of which of such, representations to purchase the said property?— by No

19. What damage has the plaintiff sustained ?—Over-value, £200; loss of rent £15; general, £75; total, £290. Mr. Endean asked that as his leader Mr. Reed, had left the Court the question of entering judgment stand over His Honor said that he would isc* pronounce judgment until Monday morning.