SALE OF THE DOME STATION. INTERESTING COURT CASE.

Otago Witness, Issue 2857, 16 December 1908, Page 52

SALE OF THE DOME STATION. INTERESTING COURT CASE.

Last week the Supremo Court at Invorcargill had its time taken up with the case Crow v. Peter and Studholme, an action! in which the plaintiff sued defendants for £2300, being balance of purchase money for sheep. 6tock, etc., on the Dome Station, recently sold by plaintiff to defendants. Defondants admitted that £750 was due for, sheap, but ei:ter«^ a counter-claim fan £2500 vlan-ag-js fo^. preach of warranty by, plaintiff of the vaiysr of the station in question and the number of sheep thereon. Tha counter-cldinp was tried for 6ix days before. j Mr Justice Williams and a separate jury, and a verdict was returned on Friday afternoon for £1000 damages and costs. Judg-. ment will accordingly be entered for defeu-* dants on claim and counter-claim for ap« proximately £250. with costs on the highest scale, disbursements, and witnesses' ex« pensea. Messrs Hoskinjr. X.C.. and Macdonaldi appeared for plaintiff, and Messrs W. Oi. MaeGregor and Macali&ter for defendants. The case engaged a great deal of local attention, involving as it did a large amount j of export and other evidence regarding the* j sheep-carrying capacity of Dome Station. I The jury answered the issues put to them i as follows: — ' • . 1. (a) Did Crow agree with the defendants to poison the run for £10? (b) If not,' what sum is he entitled to recover in. excess of £10?— (a) Yes. 2. Did Crow, in July, 1907, before the contract for sale of the Dome Station was concluded, make to the defendants or-either of them any, and if any which, of the following representations of fact: (a) that' the Dome Station was then carrying over. 5000 sheep; (b) that not less than 4500 of I the said- sheep were ewes in lamb ; (c) that the eaid ewes were not due to lamb before the 15th October, 1907?— (a) Tea. (b) Yes(c) No. 3. Were any, and if any which, of the alleged representations (a), (b), and (c) in, fact not true?— (a) Not true, (b) Not true. 4. Were any, and if any which, of the representations found by the last precedingissue not to be true a warranty forming part of the bargain for the sale of the run andstoek?— (a and b) Both warranties. 5. In case the last preceding issue i» answered in the affirmative what damages are the defendants entitled to recover?--Defendants entitled to damages on land only, £100. The motion for judgment will probably I be made in Dunedin this week.