COURT OF APPEAL.

Otago Daily Times, Issue 19500, 8 June 1925, Page 8

COURT OF APPEAL.

SALE OF SOUTHLAND FARM. CONTRACT RESCINDED. (Peb United Press Association.) WELLINGTON, Juno 6. The Appeal Court gave judgment this morning in the case Wilkinson v. Bissett. The appeal was allowed, with costs on the highest scale, and the contract was rescinded. The appellants wore Thomas Vernon Wilkinson and Frederick Johnston Alexander, of Timaru, retired farmers, and the respondent was Robert Hugh Bissett, of Avondale, farmer. By an agreement dated May 7, 1919, the respondent agreed to soil to appellants a sheep (arm known as “Avondale,” situated near Nightcaps, in Southland, for £13,260 ICs, of which £2OOO was paid in cash and the balance was to be paid on May 1, 1924. The appellant, Wilkinson, took possession of the farm and worked it in partnership until July, 1923, when Alexander retired from the partnership, Wilkinson working on his own account from that date. The commencement of proceedings was a writ to recover the half-yearly instalment of interest, amounting to £316 19s 3d, duo ou May 1,1924. On July 1. 1924, appellants gave notice to respondent that they rescinded the contract for the purchase, of the farm on the ground of misrepresentation, and to claim for interest. They filed a counterclaim, in which they alleged that they wore induced to enter into-the’contract by false and fraudulent representation on the part of respondent, and claimed to have the contract rescinded or in the alternative to recover £SOOO damages. The representation alleged to have boon made was that, (he farm had a carrying capacity of 2000 sheep, whereas, according to appellants, in April, 1919, the capacity did not exceed 1500. It. was stated for this reason the land was not worth more than £BOOO. Mr Justice Sim hold that what was said by respondent to bring about the contract was simply an expression of opinion, and that it was still his honest opinion that, the carrying capacity of the land was 2000 sheep, and, owing to the erratic methods adopted by the appellant, Wilkinson, it was impossible to ascertain what was the precise carrying capacity of the land. Mr Justice Sim also held that the appellants had not proved that the farm had been properly managed, was not capable of carrying 20CO sheep, and respondent was entitled to judgment on the counter-claim as well as for interest duo. Judgment was accordingly entered for £316 19s 3d, and for £220 ICs, the amount of costs. The appellants .contended that ihe whole judgment was erroneous in point of fact and law.