SETTLED OUT OF COURT.

New Zealand Herald, Volume LIX, Issue 18279, 21 December 1922, Page 6

SETTLED OUT OF COURT.

DISPUTE OVER LAND.

A dispute between the owner and ttie lessees of a small farm at New Lynn came before Mr. Justice Stringer at the Supreme Court yesterday. John. Murrell (Mr. Luxford) watchmaker, sought; I ' to recover from Godfrey Tasman Dudley, Ernest William Carse, and Harry Carse (Mr. Inder),.£7B, being half a year> rent of the property, du& under a lease between the parties, and £119 damages for alleged breach of covenant and regligent farming. Defendants admitted that the half year's rent had not been paid, trat denied the other allegations. Tli'ey counter-claimed for rescission of the I M se, and £308 damages, including £168 :cnt and rates paid, alleging that they were induced to enter into the lease and guarantee by fake representations or by representations negligently or recklessly made. Defendants, in thair statement of counter-claim, alleged that they were induced to enter into the lease by a written reprssentation, in the form of an advertisement published at the request or by the authority of plaintiff or his agtnt, that a 22-gallon suburban milk supply went with and would be included in the lease; by verbal representations by plaintiff during negotiatio»is that he could atd would procure, for them a milk supply business selling 22 gallons daily; that ihs land would carry six cows all the yeaf round; and that there was a permanent natural supply of drinking waiter for cattle on the land. These representations, it was alleged, were false. Defendants had vacated the property and sought rescission of the lease and damages. Plaintiff denied the allegations. In opening the case, Mr. Luxford said that plaintiff was the owner of" a small farm of 12£ acres at New Lynn, and leased it to the defendants, Dudley and Carse, jun., the rent being guaranteed by Carse, sen. It was not disputed that the half-year's rent was due and owing aim that certain rates had not been paid. The real question for plaintiff was to prove material damages for negligent farmingPlaintiff's allegations were that the whole property and buildings were well kept and in good order when defendants took possession, but that defendants negligently farmed the land, did not put on manure, and let the pasture fall away. The most important point was the alleged practical destruction of the orchard, lemon trees- - and hedges by defendant's horses and cattle. The fences, it was claimed. had been damaged, and the house and buildings left in an unsatisfactory and untidy state. In June last defendants gave notice of intention to vacate on the ground of misrepresentation. This was an once denied. Defendants vacated and plamtiH was now in possession. Plaintiff gave evidence in detail support Of counsel's statement. Crosj-esam-ined, he said that the advertisement in question was inserted without his authority. He said that at the first interview lie told defendants that the advertisement was wrong, and that no milk round went with the lease as it had been taken over by a previous tenant. He gave them clearly to understand there was no milk supplvHe admitted he introduced defendants to the old customers. He did not make the other representations alleged in the counter-claim. He told defendants he sola five cows to the previous tenant, inferring the property had carried them. It had done so. Plaintiff was questioned at some length as to the transaction with tne previous tenant. After the luncheon adjournment a settlement was reached by which deiendants agreed to pav to plaintiff €130 H* full settlement of "all claims and costs, the counter-claim and allegations of fraud being withdrawn.