DISPUTED LAND DEAL.

New Zealand Herald, Volume LV, Issue 16983, 17 October 1918, Page 7

DISPUTED LAND DEAL.

RETURN OF DEPOSIT.

ALLEGED MISREPRESENTATION.

A claim to recover £100 deposit paid during negotiations for the purchase of a farm, interest at 8 per cent., from April 8, £100 damages, and costs, was heard at the Supreme Court yesterday before Mr. Justice Cooper. The plaintiff was Isabella Robb, wife of William Robb, eharomilker, Ruawai (Mr. Haddow), and the defendant Herbert Brown, sewing machine agent, of Tuakau (Mr. McConnell). In her statement of claim plaintiff declared that the defendant had induced her to pay the deposit by false and fraudulent misrepresentations.

The defence was a general denial of the statement of claim. Defendant declared by way of a further defence that plaintiff entered into a contract to purchase the farm for £2110, of which £100 was to be paid in cash as a deposit. Without any breach on defendant's part plaintiff repudiated the contract. He held that the deposit thereby became forfeited to him. The plaintiff, giving evidence, said that on April 6. 1918, she interviewed the defendant at Hamilton regarding tho purchase of a farm of 102 acres at Tuakau. Defendant said it would grass over 20 milking cows and other stock in its then state all the year round. He said he paid £23 an acre. Asked why he was not on [the farm if it was such a good one, he i replied that he could make over £600 by ' selling sewing machines. She and her hueband went to view tho farm, but as the i day was very wet they did not go over the property, but were satisfied with the house. Defendant said he sold some adjoining land for £60 an acre, and that Elaintiff could made a good living and undreds of pounds besides. She believed everything defendant said. Later. she signed a blank piece of paper. When she asked why she should sign a blank sheet, the defendant replied it was for the farm, and he would fill it up later. The signature of her n - % produced, was not written by her. Defendant theri said if she paid'£loo that night he would reduce the price of the farm by another £100. Her husband thereupon paid thai sum. She asked defendant if the fences were in good order, and he replied they were sheep-proof. The next morning, as the result of what she heard, she 'consulted a solicitor and decided not to go on with the deal. On April 29 the defendant saw her and asked her why she did not go on the farm. She replied that she had found, out that she could not make a living on the farm. She repeated what he had said about the farm running over 20 cows, and said she had been told there was no feed on the farm. Tho defendant replied that he had only said what he did in jest, and that be knew ihe farm would not feed | 20 cows. Defendant then asked her whether she would take the farm in partnership with him. She refused to do 60. About May 9 she saw the defendant and demanded the return of the deposit. He replied that he hud intended to return it on the previous day, and said he would, pay it back the next day at Pukekohe. She met him there and on asking him for the money he produced 3s, saying it was all he had. He said he had given tho money to his solicitor to be paid to her, but she had not yet' received it. •■ : Similar evidence was given by William Robb.

Ernest W. Pook, , farmer, near Tuakau, <said that in his opinion tho property would carry practically no stock in the stato it was in in April last. The feed was very rough and the fences were in a very poor state. On two sides there were no fences at all. He denied paying £63 an acre for any part of his farm. Dynes Fulton, fanner, Tuakau, said he considered the land, in the state it was in during April, was not worth more thai £7 an acre, and a family 'could not make a living, it.. .