SALE OF A FARM.

New Zealand Herald, Volume LXVI, Issue 20229, 13 April 1929, Page 14

SALE OF A FARM.

PURCHASER SEEKS DAMAGES. MISREPRESENTATION ALLEGED. CONDITION OF THE PROPERTY. A claim for £BOO damages for alleged fraudulent, misrepresentation regarding the sale of a farm at Clcvcdon was heard by Mr. Justice Blair m Uio Supremo Court yesterday. The plaintiff was Emily Miriam Chestnut. (Mr. West), who claimed that she had been induced to purchase a farm of 34 acres- with homestead allotment and live and dead stock for £2900, by allegedly false representations that it would carry 50 cows for ten months in the year, and had done so, and that it was not subject to flooding. The defendants were tho owners of tho farm, William Peter Seaton and Alico Winifred Seaton (Mr. Haigh), but as the latter had not been served the plaintiff proceeded against William Peter Seaton alone. Plaintiff claimed that the faim was not worth more than £2IOO Defendant domed that there had been any false representation by him or his agents as alleged, and claimed that plaintiff in purchasing tlie firm had relied on her own and her husband's inspection and judgment.

Mr. West said the action was of a type that was very common a few years ago, but was fortunately becoming rarer now. The plaintiff and her husband, J. N. Chestnut, came from To Kuiti and purchased this farm in September, 1927, on tho strength of representations made by the defendants and by E. It. Tyldcn, acting as their agent. The defendant might have had his tongue in his cheek when he suggested to plaintiff after the sale that ducks might be more profitable than cows. For a part of the year the place was only fit for a duck farm. Counsel said there could be no doubt whatever that Seaton knew the conditions and that tho farm was practically a ponding area draining the water from 10,000 acres. He had been in trouble with tho local body for grazing his cattle on the roads, and had appealed to be allowed to do so as his farm was flooded Evidence would show that the farm would carry only about 16 cows, and even then outside feeding would have to be provided.

The remainder of tlie day was occupied with the hearing of tlm evidence of .lames Nathaniel Chestnut, husband of the plaintiff, and of a number of local farmers. Chestnut said that both defendant and Tylden had reassured him when lie asked if the property flooded. Neighbouring farmers gave evidence that the farm was a very wet one, and at times in the winter two-thirds of it was covered. It was usually flooded from eight to twelve times in a season. Witnesses valued the farm with improvements at from £I6OO to £I9OO. The further hearing of the case was adjourned until Monday morning.