A PROPERTY EXCHANGE.

New Zealand Herald, Volume LXII, Issue 19196, 9 December 1925, Page 8

A PROPERTY EXCHANGE.

WRONG LAND INSPECTED. CLAIM MADE FOR DAMAGES. PARTIES REACH SETTLEMENT. An action to recover £l4ll damages for alleged fraudulent misrepresentation in a land exchange transaction was heard in the Supreme Court yesterday before Sir Robert Stout, Chief Justice. The plaintiff was Cyril Dudley Lester, motor mechanic (Mr. J. B. Johnston), and the defendant Richard Keene, settler, Welling, ton (Mr. Goulding). Plaintiff filed an alternative claim for .£I4OO damages for alleged breach of warranty. Mr. Johnston said that on May 15, 1923, the parties entered into an agreement, for a property exchange. Plaintiff was to hand over a property of 11 acres at Hellyer's Creek, Birkdale, a launch and £l5O in cash in exchange for a second mortgage for £I4OO secured on a property near Mercer. The first mortgage was for £6OO. Somo months after the agreement was reached plaintiff's father, who had conducted all the negotiations on his son's behalf, discovered that the Mercer property, which was shown to him, was not the one on which the mortgage was secured. He was satisfied the wrong property had been pointed out to him and that the true property was much inferior in value. Ho acquainted defendant with the position, and the correspondence which followed showed, said Mr. Johnston, that defendant was an adept in procrastination. At the time of opening up the negotiations with Lester, Keene actually did not have the mortgage. Lester dealt with the mortgage after his inspection of the wrong property. Evidence on these lines was given by plaintiff and his father. Valuers testified to the difference in values of the two properties at Mercer. Mr. Goulding that Keene could not deny that the wrong property was shown to plaintiff's father, but Keene did not visit the property with Lester until June 9, after the documents of exchange had been signed. His Honor asked what was the good of showing Lester the property after the transaction had been completed. The thing was absurd. The letters from defendant to plaintiff assumed the right property had been inspected. After the luncheon adjournment it was announced that a settlement had been reached agreeing to judgment for plaintiff. The amount was not disclosed.