BIRCH HILL FARM CASE.

New Zealand Herald, Volume LXII, Issue 18963, 10 March 1925, Page 7

BIRCH HILL FARM CASE.

ARGUMENT ON LAW POINTS. COURT RESERVES JUDGMENT. The Birch Hill farm case was again before Mr. Justice Reed in the Supreme Court- yesterday, when various law points involved were argued. In the case of Alfred Buckland and Sons, Ltd. (Messrs. Northcroft and Beckerleg) sued ( Robert Marshall (Mr. West) for £1291 9s lOd, under an ordinary business indebtedness; Marshall, wh : Je he admitted the debt, set up a counter claim of £6069 3s 6d, alleging on the part of the plaintiff firm misrepresentation and neglect of duty as agents. The litigation aroso out of the purchase by Marshall from J. C. Wilson, through Buckland and Sons, of Birch Hill Farm, Runciman. At the trial the jury returned a verdict, at the end of the fifth day of hearing, upon a long series of issues. It found the plaintiff company did undertake to act as Marshall's agent and adviser in the purchase of a farm in New Zealand; that it did make certain representations with regard to the property; that some of these representations were untrue; and that thft plaintiff company failed to disclose matters which it was their duty to disclose to defendant. Though the jury assessed the damage suffered by defendant at £2OOO, it also declared in answer to other clauses in the issues that the representations made by Bucklands were not made fraudulently. Yesterday's phase of the matter consisted of motions by Messrs. Northcroft and Beckerleg for judgment in favour of the plaintiff firm, or, in the alternative, for a non-suit, upon seven separate grounds. Among these, it was claimed that, as Marshall is an undischarged bankrupt, under proceedings in the Scottish Courts, ho has no cause of action; that the damage sustained by him, if any, is too remote; also that the allegations founded on fraud have been disproved, and that defendant has failed to prove negligence. A third motion by the plaintiffs was for a new trial, on the grounds that the findings of the jury were against the weight of evidence, and that the damages awarded were excessive. After hearing counsel in argument, His Honor reserved judgment.