REPUDIATED AGREEMENT.

New Zealand Herald, Volume LV, Issue 16796, 12 March 1918, Page 6

REPUDIATED AGREEMENT.

LAND EXCHANGE DEAL,

EVIDENCE BY PLAINTIFF.

The hoaring of the action for specific performance, brought by George Snook, Auckland (Mr. McConncll), against Thomas R. Tindall, fanner, Awhitu (Mr. Richmond), and commenced at the Supreme Court last Thursday, was resumed yesterday before Mr. Justice Hosking. The action aroso out of the repudiation by the defendant, on the ground wf misrepresentation, of an agreement to exchange his farm for a number of city properties belonging to tho plaintiff. Plaintiff claimed £200 damages or, if specific performance wero not granted, £SCO damages.

Evidence was given for the defence by Robert J. Entrican, land agent and valuer, who stated that Mr. Tindall had put his farm in his hands for sale. Ho considered that 100 acres of the flat land on the farm was worth from £30 to £35 an acre and the rest was worth £10 an acre.

In opening the case for the plaintiff, Mr. McConnell submitted that the transaction was a perfectly fair ono in point of value. He submitted that the defendant had every opportunity of considering the matter, and no pressure was brought to bear upon him to sign the agreement; nor did he sign while in a state of mental and physical exhaustion. After entering into the agreement the defendant wrote many letters to the agent going into details as to settlement and taking possession. The defendant subsequently confirmed the whole transaction by tho execution of another agreement, which was prepared by the defendant's solicitor.

The plaintiff, in his evidence, said he first met the defendant in Ml\ Bollard's office on October 4. They discussed the various properties it was proposed to exchange, also the mortgages on some of them. About 4 p.m. witness and defendant, with Mr. Stephens, loft by motor-car to inspect house properties belonging to witness, and the defendant expressed satisfaction with those he saw. In the evening they returned to Mr. Bollard's office, and during the discussion witness said to the defendant that ho had not yet seen sufficient properties to balance the exchange of the farm. It was then arranged that the defendant should be met by motor-car next morning and inspect another pro. perty. Later in the day a Northcote property was inspected. They returned about three o'clock. Witness told the defendant that unless he was thoroughly satisfied with the properties he did not want to deal. Defendant said he thought they could do business. Defendant asked Mr. Bollard about the value of the properties, and he replied that he had not seen them and defendant must satisfy himself as to their value. Defendant agreod Do deal, and about 5 p.m. an agreement was drawn up. Mr. Tindall" signed it, but witness did not, as ho wanted fo see defendant's farm before doing so. Ho did so, and on October 12 signed tlio agreement. Witness said that after the transaction was completed he raised a mortgage on the farm, and this money was still being held for him. He was paying interest at 6 per cent, and had incurred other expenses. Under cross-examination witness stated that Mr. Tindnll said ho was quite satisfied with the properties when he returned to Mr. Bollard's office. Mr. Richmond: Then Mr. Tindall was lying when he said in his evidence that he stated over and over again that he did not want these properties?—Tf ho said that I think ho did not know what he was talking about; it is not true. Don't you consider that this is the best deal you have ever made?— it is the worst deal. Counsel cross-examined witness in regard to the amounts he had paid for the properties he proposed to exchange for the defendant's farm. William Duncan, valuer, stated in evidence that, in bis opinion, the value of tho plaintiff's properties was slightly more than the vnluo of Mr. Tindnll'a farm. He considered the deal was a .fair one. The further hearing of the case was adjourned until this morning.