FARM LAND DISPUTE.

New Zealand Herald, Volume LXIII, Issue 19265, 2 March 1926, Page 12

FARM LAND DISPUTE.

PURCHASE NOT COMPLETED.

CLAIM FOR PERFORMANCE. ALLEGED MISREPRESENTATION. Misrepresentation in law, although it was not alleged it was other than iiinocent in its character, was put forward ?n the Supreme Court yesterday as tho ground of a refusal to complete the purchase of an area •of farm land in the W aitoruo district. The King's College incorporated Company (Sir. Northcroft) sought to obtain from Mr. Justice Herdman a decree for specific performance by Walter William Jones, of Tauranga (Mr. A. H. Johnstons), of a contract for the purchase of 516 acres of land, under an arrangement made early last year, or in the alternative £SOO damages.

The agreement was put in, and it was agreed between counsel that unless defendant could prove justification for the refusal to carry it out, plaintiffs were entitled to tho decree prayed for.

Defendant, it was stated, saw the property in question, known as Hood s Farm —it had fallen into the collego trustees' hands under a .mortgage —advertised for sale by T. Mandeno Jackson, and was taken 'by H. J. Saunders, the firm's Hamilton representative, to see the property. He said that, having had experience with the " bush sickness " of cattla in the Bay of Plenty district, ho specially emphasised that he would buy only land that was healthy to stock. While on the farm he was assured by Saunders that the land had not been top-dressed, sad was therefore susceptible of improvement, and also that it would carry 500 sheep—that Flood had run 66 or 70 cows upon it. It was also stated the boundaries of the property were pointed out from an elevated position, and defendant was told there were no reservations or restrictions upon the. title. Afterwards it was ascertained there were within tho boundaries two acres of scenic reserve and also two acres of school site reserve, besides two bridle-track reservations. 50 links wide, covering abont four acres, stretching across tho property; and also that part of the land had been stock-sick. On discovering these facts ho declined to proceed any further under the agreement Tho case for plaintiffs with regard to the school and scenic reserves was that they were an area of which all previous owners of tho farm had had the use for the last 25 years. Tho bridle-tracks were olfl-time tracks, reserved for the benefit of travelling natives and surveyors, and were not now required for that purpose. They were not roads, but really unalienated Crown land. Settlers on lands, similarly situated had been allowed by the Crown to buy them afc merely nominal prices. In any case, the defendant got, irrespective of. the tracks, the area which plaintiffs had contracted to sell. With regard to the cattle sickness, it was asserted that Saunders had given no assurance as to the immunity of Flood's Farm, but had merely assented to a suggestion by Jones that tho Waitomo lime stone country was free from it. It was denied that Saunders had mentioned top dressing, or stated the cattle-carrying capacity of the farm, and it was suggested that Jones- must havo received his information on the point from some other source, and confused it with that given by Saunders. Andrew Wilson, surveyor, who is farming in the district, said ho did not think it was subject to bush-sickness in cattle,. Anything that was taken for that was more likely to be duo to mismanagement of the land. « . .

James Boddie, formerly Mayor of Te Kuiti, and a membe" of the Waitomo County Council, said he had never heard of any indication of cattle-sickness at Waitomo.

The evidence was concluded and argument on law points was postponed until to-day.