DISPUTE OVER FARM.

New Zealand Herald, Volume LXIV, Issue 19748, 22 September 1927, Page 15

DISPUTE OVER FARM.

DISSATISFIED PURCHASER. MISREPRESENTATION ALLEGED. CLAIM FOR MORTGAGE MONEY. The sale early in 1925 of a farm at Kaiwaka, about 84 miles north of Auckland, formed the subject of a civil action in the Supreme Court yesterday before Mr. Justice Stringer. The plaintiff, Thomas Judd, farmer, Auckland (Mr. Prendergast), sold the property to defendant, William Coulter, farmer, Kaiwaka (Mr. A.' Gray, K.C., of Wellington, and Mr. Wallace).. The area of the land was 936 acres and the purchase-price £3900. The action was brought by plaintiff as mortgagee to recover principal and interest owing. He asked for judgment for £2700 principal, for sums of £56 and £Bl interest, and for interest at 6 per cent, on £2700 from March 1, 1927, to the date of judgment. The defendant asked to have the conveyance and mortgage of the property set aside, or, the alternative, for £2OOO damages, the claim being based upon allegations of fraud and misrepresentation as to the capacity of the property.. Defendant stated he hafl been induced to enter into the contract on misrepresentations which plaintiff knew were untrue and contrary to fact. The farm would not carry more than half the 800 sheep and 100 cattle stated by plaintiff, not 600, but only 400, acres were in grass, a large portion of the farm was infested with blackberry and a large portion of the fencing was in a bad state of repair. Mr. Gray agreed with His Honor that the substantial issue was the alleged misrepresentation, and it was decided to hear the counterclaim first. Mr. Gray said defendant had been badly "had," and had found the property nothing like what had been represented to him. The defendant, giving evidence as to the condition of the farm, said practically all the boundary-fences were out of condition and the back boundary-fence was down flat for 60 or 70 chains. He found the sheep were not doing as well as expected through lack of feed, and he had to reduce their numbers. There were some 20 or 30 acres altogether infested with blackberry, and at certain seasons of the year he had to go round every day cuttiug out sheep that were entangled in it. He had had to cut out as many as 26 in one day. He denied he had been influenced against the farm by outsiders, or that want of capital was the reason for his non-success. One of the expert witnesses called on behalf of defendant said he would not accept the whole farm as a gift, as the liability would swallow up any income. The hearing of evidence will be continued to-day.