EXCHANGE OF PROPERTIES.

Otago Witness, Issue 3774, 13 July 1926, Page 24

EXCHANGE OF PROPERTIES.

SUPREME COURT ACTION. HEAVY DAMAGES SOUGHT. CLAIM AND COUNTER-CLAIM. A case which threatened to be protracted was commenced in the Supreme jUourt on July 6 before Mr Justice Sim. Sidney Howard Shale, of Christchurch, claimed from James Martin Samson (Dunedin) damages in respect of exchange of properties. Mr F. B. Adams appeared for the plaintiff. and Mr A. T. Donnelly (Christchurch) and Mr W. G. Hay, instructed by Messrs Irwin and Irwin, for defendant. The statement of claim set out that in May, 1925, plaintiff agreed with the defendant to exchange a sheep run known as “Glenlee,” and belonging to plaintiff, together with all live and dead 6tock, for (a) a farm at Norwood, near Christchurch, and (b) a farm at Awarua, near Invercar gill, both belonging to the defendant. Plaintiff took possession of the farms at Norwood and Awarua, and defendant took possession of the Glenlee property and the live and dead stock. The contract had not been completed by the conveyance, transfer, or assignment of any of the said pro perties In order to induce the plaintiff to enter into the agreement the Norwood property was stated to be in grass and oats, and that it was capable of, and had been, carrying 900 ewes and their lambs; that the farm was then well worth £l4 an acre, and if cleaned up a little would be worth £l6 per acre. With regard to Awarua, that farm was carrying, and was capable of carrying, 2000 sheep and cattle; that sheep did very well on this farm, and that the said farm was really dairying land, that it was heavy swamp land, with two feet of black soil all over, and that the farm had in the past paid its way. The plaintiff had since discovered, and the fadt was that each of the said representations were untrue, and that warranties were broken in consequence. With reference to the Norwood property, it was stated that about 40 acres ox the farm were in oats and grass. In the alternative, the plaintiff •aid that the defendant and his agents made each of the representations fraudulently, and either well knowing that these were false or recklessly made, or not oaring whether they were tfue or not. The 'Awarua property was worth far less than the sum of £l4 733 10s mentioned in Use •ontract, in fact, it was not worth ■tore than £ISOO. The plaintiff therefore claimed a reciaion of tne contract, and luch further . rdera for repayment of moneys, with intereet, and cucn direction! •o might be required for the purpose of restoring the parties to the positions occupied by them respectively before they entered into the eaid contract, and the •am of 11500 in reepect of fraudulent tepreeentatione; or, in the alternative, fIO,OOO for damaoee in reapect of fraudulent repreeentation; or 114,000 for dam age# for breach of warrantiee.

For the defence there was a general denial of the allegations made. As a counter-claim the defendant claimed to recover from the plaintiff the sum of £13,200 as damages in respect of the alleged frauds and representations, less cost to him in consequence, or in the alternative the sum of £13,200 as damages for breach of the said warranties. In an amended statement of counterclaim the defendant denied that he made any of the representations or gave any of the warranties set forth in the statement of claim. He admitted that the sheep running on Glenlee, and the stock and implements thereon, did not cost him £35,000, but that they cost him more than £22,000. Mr Adams, in opening the case for the plaintiffs, said that the plaintiff was Mr S. H. Shale, who was described as a sheep farm and who was associated with his brothers in the ownership of a property known as Glenlee. The defendant was James M. Samson, an auctioneer and land and estate agent, in Dunedin, who was the proprietor of a farm at Awarua, which was situated on the Bluff line, about seven miles from Invercargill. This property Mr Samson had acquired from Mr Robert M‘Doull. It was acquired by way of exchange; in fact, practically the whole of the transactions were a series of exchanges. Mr Samson at that time also owned the Norwood property, Which was situated near Christchurch, and it also appeared to have passed through Mr M'Doull’s hands. Counsel then put in a series of agreements which had been entered into between the parties. The Shale Brothers were at this time in possession of a property near Blenheim, known as Glenlee. It comprised 14,300 acres of leasehold land and 14,000 acres of freehold; a total of over 28,300 acres. An agreement was entered into between the parties to exchange Norwood and the Awarua property for Glenlee. With regard to Glenlee, the agreement disclosed tnafc the original typing showed that 6000 was the number of sheep on the property. This number was altered to 6000 sheep, less 560 wethers, and 500 short-mustered. The net value of this property was £27,500. Counsel then dealt with the various clauses in the claims. He said the transactions were negotiated through Mr H. H. Cook, a land agent in Christchurch. Mr Adams again referred to the alteration in connection with the number of sheep. It wis said that the alteration from 6000 to 5000 was made after the contract was signed. Mr Donnelly said Mr Cook, in his evidence, said that the alteration was made before the contract was signed. Mr Adorns said that the parties differed widely on this point. With regard to the Norwood property, the value was fixed at £12,995 in round figures, and in the case of the Awarua property the value was fixed by Samson at £14,773 10s; a total of £27,768 10s. Glenlee was valued at £27,500. and Mr Samson agreed to waive the difference. The plaintiff was desirous of hav* g the agreement rescinded. There was a good deal of dilute about mustering figures, but nothiftf definite had been decided. The three ptftyerties bad, of course, been the subject of expert valuation. In the first place Otari* valued at well above

His Honor: Did this include stock? Mr Adams answered in the negative. Continuing, he said the parties in the negotiations seemed to have gone for high prices while the negotiations were in progress, but when they came to reduce their figures to paper the amounts were considerably reduced. This, he wished to point out, was not unusual when* exchanges of properties were effected. With regard to the Awarua property, Mr Samson’s value was £14,773, but plaintiff s value was £ISOO. As a matter of fact, this property had been valued by independent valuers, and the average value fixed by these men was £9O0 —a difference of close on £14,000. Mr Adams said that both sides based their claims on fraudulent misrepresentations. The relief which the plaintiff desired was relief by way of recision of his contract. In this connection it was interesting to note that defendant did not ask for specific performance. It could not be said that defendant was a man ignorant of business methods. He waß a man of wide experience and of considerable knowledge of properties. Mr Samson had said that the two farms he was offering to exchange for Glenlee had paid their way. As far as Awarua was concerned it was pointed out it was suited for subdivision, and owing to its accessibility to Invercargill could be broken into good dairy farms. He intended to base the case rather on active misrepresentation than on concealment. Proceeding to review the pleadings, he said that the truth or falsity of certain of the representations about the value of Norwood was not known until the taking of these proceedings when defendant’s books were examined. With reference to the Awarua property, Mr Samson denied that the farm had at any time not paid its way, but it woull be hopeless for anyone to attempt to justify that claim on the figures which counsel would place before the court. The carrying capacity of Awarua was alleged to be 2000 sheep, but counsel doubted if it could be made to carry even that number. Passing on to the statement of defence, counsel drew attention to the claim that certain statements objected to vere statements of opinion and not of fact, and said that even if it were mere opinion it should be clearly understood so by the other side, and it should also be an opinion honestly held. The defence alleged that plaintiffs had full and accurate knowledge of all defects, but it was difficult to see how they could have acquired that knowledge. The defence claimed that Norwood, if properly managed, could carry 1500 sheep, whereas Elaintiff said 600. If it could carry 1500 e did not know why the parties were there in court, as the property would then be worth the value claimed for it. He guoted authority to show that a representation as to what was actually on the place was tantamount to a representation as to carrying capacity. A definite typed representation was made that "Awarua could carry 2000 sheep and cattle/' and this was interpreted to mean that it could be made to carry +hat if properly broken up, drained, and cultivated, but it was not open to plaintiff to put that interpretation upon it. There were three hypothetical paragraphs in the statement of ,defence saying that if oertain things were dqne to the farm the representations

would be true. The defendants would have to show that they had made these hypothetical considerations clear to the minds of the other side. In later paragraphs the defendants carried the charges of misrepresentation into the plaintiff’s camp. Counsel absolutely denied that plaintiff had ever claimed that Glenlee cost him £35,000. Mr Cook had handled Glenlee more than once, and knew it well. He said in his evidence in Christchurch that Glenlee had not cost the Shales £35,000. Samson did not know what the property had cost the Shales. The defence went oa to allege that the carrying capacity of Glenlee was 10,000 to 11,000 sheep. Mf Cook and Mr Shale both alleged that the property if cleaned up a little, would carry 8000 sheep. The Government sheep returns showed that in 1914 the sheep on the property totalled 10,000. When the Shales took it over it was only carrying 1800 sheep. Plaintiff and his brothers did not handle the proceeds from rabbitskins and wool; these went to the brokers handling them. The plaintiff was before the court in an endeavour to get Glenlee back, and defendant had only to say the word and this would be done. As a matter of law counsel could not see how defendant could resist recission of the contract. If the defendants were sincere he had only to accept the offer made. With regard to the allegation that plaintiff had said that all the sheep on Glenlee were young sheep, that was not possible. No station was carried on solely with young sheep. The capital value of Glenlee when it was held by Mr Donald Macdonald was £45,000. It was at that time carrying 10,000 sheep. What plaintiff sought was the restoration of Glenlee and the return of the two farms to Mr Samson. If they could get that thev would be content not even to think of the question of damages. If tho defendant were injured as he claimed he was the way of escape was easy foi him. Mr Donnelly asked that witnesses be ordered out of court with the exception of valuers, and an order was made accord ingly. Sidney H. Shale, of Christchurch, farmer, the plaintiff in the case, said he had had a fair amount of experience as an agricultural farmer. His brother, Oliver, was formerly prpprietor of a farm at Berwick, into which witness put £I2OO. Oliver was there about four years, and improved the place very much. Witness did not inspect Glenlee before it was purchased, but his brothers, Oliver and Charles, did and got his consent by telephone to purchase. He produced an agreement showing the price of the Berwick property to be £5716. with £2IOO for stock The values of Glenlee and Berwick were written down £2OOO on each side to save stamp duty. He and his brothers took in the Berwick property at £2OOO more than was shown in the agreement. He had trouble about the renewal of the mortgage, and about getting the title to the farm. At the time of the deal in January, 1924, Glenlee was. subject to a mortgage of £9500 in favour of the Edwards trust, Nelson. Witness paid £4OOO on, and the trustees re-advanced £2OOO of that to him. He and his brothers took possession of Glenlee in January, 1924. Witness first saw it about the end of March. It was alive with rabbits and the fences were bad. Witness gave evidence as to his expenditure on Glenlee, and the income derived from it since he took it over from Bowron and Smith. No guaran tee was then given as to the number of sheep on the run. Questioned as to the meaning of “young” 9heep witness said that a merino might be called young even if it were 8-tooth. The mouths of merinos lasted much better than those of other sheep. By May, 1925, all the fences on Glenlee had been put in repair, and the rabbits had been cleared off to a great extent. Some 13,000 were taken off. Witness got in touch with Mr H. H. Cook, land agent of Christchurch, about January or February, 1925. Mr Cook approached him about the sale of Glenlee saying he had a purchaser at £35,000 cash. Cook had no authority at all from witness to sell but unknown to witness he had such authority from witness’s brother Oliver. Cook never produced that authority to wit ness. About the end of March Cook spoke to witness about the Awarua and Norwood properties, and gave him particulars. Cook told him the Awarua farm was a fine piece of property eight or nine miles from Invercargill. He said it would carry 2000 sheep and cattle, and had 2ft of black soil all over. He thought it was Mr Samson that produced the plan of the Awarua property. Cook said it was only a matter of time when it would be a very valuable property. It was surveyed for cutting up into dairy farms. A lot of it had been drained, but a little more draining was wanted. Cook also stated that the Norwood property was a very fine property. It had 900 ewes and their lambs, and was great fattening country. It was worth £l4 an acre as it was. With a little improvement it would be worth £l6. Witness went out to look at the Norwood property in company with Mr Pilbrow in April, 1925* He saw a lot of twitch and some young grass. The soil looked very good, but he was not aware there was no subsoil. There was a paddock in very bad condition across the road that was not shown to him till after the purchase was made. The lambs on the property looked very well, and the sheep were fair. Later, in an interview with Mr Cook and Mr Samson, plans were produced. Mr Samson said he had had the Awarua farm all surveyed, and it was good heavy land. He said it would carry 2000 sheep and cattle, and that sheep did very well there. He assured witness that the farms paid their way. Witness asked for a balance sheet showing the profits of tho properties, and Mr Samson volunteered to show the books. He offered to make out a statement, but had never done so. The reason Samson gave for selling the properties was that he wanted a sheep-run for his son. Mr Samson said he nad sold two sections at £l4 per acre, and that the man was paying a deposit of £2OO. Ho _ said he would guarantee that. He also said that the man was going to build a house, and was going to fence the property. Samson had a map with him, and he pointed at another sections which he said he was going -to sell for £l2 10a per acre. Witness asked him why he would sell that section for £l2 10s when he had sold the others for £l4 per acre. He said it was narrow and he wanted to get rid of it. He said it was good dairying land It waa good soil all over. Mr Samson also spoke of the Norwood property, which he characterised as a good property, aid paid well. He said one of the men he bad there had made a lot of money for him. It was arranged that Mr Samson should inspect Glenlee. Mr Samson wanted witness to inspect the

Awarua property first, but witness would not agree to this. Witness accompanied Cook and Samson to Glenlee. On the way to Glenlee witness gave Mr Samson a map of the property, and a valuation certificate showing the Government valuation of the property. The figures given correctly stated the Government valuation. He told defendant that there were 6000 sheep on the property. He also told him that if the rabbits were kept down and the property cleaned up h© would have no difficulty in carrying 8000 sheep. He also said that it had carried 10,000 sheep. He was not asked what Glenlee had cost him. When the party arrived at Glenlee at 6 o’olock in the evening, witness met his two brothers and Mr Steinson, who was at that time manager of Glenlee. After tea Mr Samson produced a map of the Awarua property. Defendant pointed out to witness’s brother, Oliver, parts of the property which had been sold. The following morning defendant was taken out to the back of the run, and the same party went to the downs, or the front country, in the afternoon. They did not go very far, Mr Samson intimating that he would send up a man to spend a week on the property and report. The party left that evening for Christchurch! Shortly after this Mr Samson invited witness to inspect the Awarua property. Witness did not tell Mr Samson that he was going down, but went there unannounced. He called at William Todd and Co.’s office in Invercargill, and he was directed to the place. He saw Mr Samson’s manager, and inspected part of the property. The only stock he saw on the property were a few cows. Bates, the manager, told him the stock was on a neighbour’s property. Tho neighbour wanted some feed eaten down and some land tramped in. He would not be half an hour on the property. The place did not appeal to him, and he did not wish to see any more of it. He called at Todd and Co.’s in Invercargill on the wav back and told them his opinion of the property. He had reallv decided that he would have nothing more to do with it. On his return to Christchurch he saw Mr Cook and told him that he would have nothing more to do with the property. Mr Cook said: “Don’t be so foolish as to turn down a good proposition like that.” He told his brother he had no desire to have anything more to do with it. His brothers thought he should have another look at it. He came to Dunedin with his brother Charles on May 12. He was accompanied by a Mr Aitken, from Timaru, who wished to show him a property at Waipahi. Aitken wished to exchange the Waipxhi property for Glenlee. Mr Samson met them on the Dunedin railway station and they went on to Invercargill together and again inspected the Awarua property. Bates joined the party and at Mr Samson’s instructions brought a shovel which he used in order, to show the depth and quality of the soil. They were shown what he now realised was the best of the property. Mr Samson told witness that he could get draining done at 9s per chain. Samson showed witness a ditch and drew his attention to the good fall for drainage. Defendant said the land all over was as good as that on which they were standing They tußrc left Mr Samson. Witness said he had since been over the ground beyond the ditch. It was useless land and there was absolutely no vegetation on it. This was not visible from the point where they left Mr Samson. What he saw of the farm was undoubtedly the best of it. The soil when turned up looked very good. Witness saw a little manuka on a rise, a little distance from where they were. Defendant said the land was all of the same quality. He also said that there was plenty of fall. Witness saw about 59 head of cattle that day. The young cattle looked very well. There were no sheep on the property, witness *s«<2(l Mr Samson to get him the working expenses of the property At the time of the inspection he was entirely unfamiliar with land in Southland, and his visit of inspection was the first occasion he had been to Southland. Mr Samson said the carrying capacity of the property was 2000 sheep and cattle. When he returned to Dunedin he met Mr Cook, when he .discussed the negotiations. Mr Cook said if he would go on with the deal he would get the stock on the Norwood property thrown in, and would endeavour to get the stock on the Awarua property thrown in also. He asked Mr Cook to get a statement of the working expenses. He saw Mr Cook later, and he said he had seen Mr Samson, who had agreed to throw in the stock on the Awarua property. He again urged Mr Cook to get a statement of the working expenses. On May 19 he met Mr Samson at Mr Look s office. His brother Charles was with them. The first thing he asked Mr Samson was whether he had brought a statement of the working expenses of the properties, and he said he had come without them. Witness asked defendant if he thought the properties paid, and he said they did. He said he quite a lot of money out of the Norwood property. He asked Samson if he would throw in the stock. Samson said he would not, but would sell them fairly cheap. Cook urged Samson to throw them in, but he said he would not. Samson asked witness to go out and value the chaff stacks. With regard to the valuation of the stock on Glenlee, Mr Samson insisted on a muster, but witness pointed out that a muster at that time of year was not advisable. Cook told witness that 25 per cent, was a reasonable allowance for carrying sheep over through the winter on run country. Samson thought that was too high. Mr Cook altered his notes accordingly. Witness understood that the object of the clause “subject to loss of 500 sheep at mustering” was to limit witnesss loss. There was no discussion that night as to the number of sheep Glenlee would carry, save that witness said it would carry 8000 if it were cleaned up. The ages of the sheeD were not mentioned. Samson signed a document, and witness signed a contract to be replaced by another the next day, arranging for the exchange of Glenlee for the Norwood and Awarua properties. Just prior to that Cook advised witness to say nothing about the wool on Glenlee, as it was his, and he undertook to get witness the ■tacks and chaff on Norwood. He thought on the figures given him of stock carrying capacity and the prices of sections that the exchange of Glenlee for the propertiee at Awarua and Norwood would not be far out. Cook told witneea that Sameon had eaid that witneea had bribed Warring, who was valuing, to put the valuea down. That waa absolutely untrue. He had viaited Awarua four

times since the contract was made, and of these visits he gave particulars. A man named Harrington was living in the house, and was in charge of the place. When he went over another part of the property in October he was very much disappointed indeed. The Norwood property was then under offer to a man named Dickson, and the Awarua property was also under offer. He told the agents not to do any more till he had had the place inspected. Next month he went over the property with Mr Milne, of Invercargill, as expert valuer, and he came to the conclusion that he had been absolutely deceived. On November 28 his solicitors wrote rescinding the contract. There had been no stock on the property since he took it over except two cows of Harrington’s. Idleness should improve the property. His brothers had been working on the Norwood property off and on ever since they purchased it. It had been kept stocked, and had not been neglected, but much improved. At this stage the court was adjourned till 10 a.m. next day. Mr Adams continued his examination of the plaintiff, Sidney Howard Shale. Witness said he made an arrangement with a man named Stevenson to represent him at Glenlee run. Under cross-examination by Mr A. T. 'Donnelly witness said he had had some 20 years’ farming experience. He been in partnership with his - brother Oliver at Berwick. He held a farm at Oamaru from 1906 to 1919, and had been interested in another small adjoining farm. He had had -no interest in his brother’s farm at Milton. His brothers Oliver and Charlee were in partnership with him, but there was no arrangement in waiting between them. . His brothers bought Glenlee without his seeing it. Glenlee was originally bought in Oliver’s name, bul it was changed to witness’s name because of the treatment Oliver was getting from Cook and Bowron and Smith. Witness declined counsel’s suggestion that he had changed the name of the property so that Cook, Bowron and Smith could not get at his brother. Counsel further examined witness about the purchase of property at Fendalton for £3OOO by Oliver Shale. His brothers had a quarter each in Glenlee and he had a half, and they were at present owing him £SOOO or £6OOO. He knew that in exchange transactions values were sometimes put up a little. He inspected Norwood twice before the sale. Counsel examined as to various property negotiations in which witness and his brothers had been concerned. He did not know much about the Berwick property at all. He liked the Glenlee property when he saw it in March, 1924. They mustered 1600. He had figures to show that Glenlee had cost his brothers and him £28,000. Counsel examined witness regarding various items in this total. He saiff they had “done up” between 40 and 50 miles of fencing on Glenlee. Witness was unable to show where the expense of fencing appeared in the accounts. He and his brothers thought £I2OO was a fair payment for their services for about 18 months. He had charged in the account all the working expenses of the place. He thought some little adjustment might be made in the account for £28,000, but it was hard to say what th adjustment was. When he and his brothers first got into touch with Samson he considered the property was worth £35,000, though they would have taken less on account of the trouble they had been put to. He did not instruct Cook to increase the price to £35,000 or to reduce the sheep to 6000. He had no doubt they might have taken £30,000 cash for Glenlee. Witness complained of the for Glenlee. Witness gave evidence about his visits to Awarau and his examination of it before purchase. It did not appeal to him, and he did not go much into it. it was not a fact that his first inspection of Awarua was before bis purchase of Glenlee. Samson told him he had made the Awarua farm pay. and it never crossed his mind to wonder how, as he believed Samson. He saw Cook make the alterations now appearing in the agreement. After the agreement was signed he thought he had to deliver to Samson 5000 sheep less 567 and less another 500. He signed the agreement because he worked out the carrying capacity of Awarua at about 3000. and he was satisfied with the carrying capacity of Norwood also. He>, did not consider by any means that Glenlee was loaded £15,000. He thought the values given him by Samson would be somewhere about it. He instructed Harrington to 6x up the fences on Awarua. Harrington told him it would take a year or two to get returns from it. The property was for a time in Cook’s hands to deal with Fox. After October 13 last he knew that the Awarua property vai bad. When he inspected the property Hr November be found it far worse than ever he had thought. He did not know till a considerable time afterwards that the muster on Glenlee in November showed only about 3600 sheep. Ho had no recollection of telling a man Dorman that he was afraid there might be a shortage of sheep on Glenlee and that he would have to pay Samson something. He did not discuss with Dorman issuing a unit for misrepresentatiou against Sanison so as to effect a compromise. TTie sheep guarantee had nothing to do with his taking these proceedings He told Cook to tell Samson that if he liked to take the sheep as they were without a muster he would make him an allowance of £l5O. Samson refused. Steenaon was to look after the sheep on Glenlee and Report to witness. Samson would pay him only £2 a week and witness agreed to make it up to him to £4 10s or the man Would not have stayed. He began to find out n day or two after the contract was signed that the people he was dealing with Were not what he thought they were. After ♦he luncheon adjournment Mr Adams intimated that he intended to get an accountant to work on the figures given for the cost of Glenlee to see what he could make of the material available. Mr Adams re-examined witness regarding certain items in his passbook. Oliarles Lionel Shale, the next witness called, said he was a farmer at Norwood, and brother of the previous witness. He gave his brother Dliver a hand on a farm at Berwick for a time, but he did not put any of Ids own money into it. Oliver was the first to negotiate for the pur chase of Glenlee. Cook quoted £17,000 for it. The exchange went through at £15,000. Bowron saying it would save stemp duty to i educe it by £2GOO. Witnea* said he had never done any of that so-t of work before, but it was eventually agreed to do as Bowron proposed. There were 1300 acres in the Berwick farm, and he valied it at £6 an acre. He gave

evidence as to visiting the Norwood farm, and also the Awarua farm. His brother Sidney and he went over part of the farm at Awarua with Samson, and Samson told thorn the rest of the farm was just the same as what they had seen. Samson told witness that both the farms paid, and that a lot of money had been made out of Norwood. Samson said he was selling be caise it was difficult to get men to understand agricultural farming. Samson said he had sold two sections at Awarua and that there were other two sections that he could sell. Witness was influenced to sipn the contract by what Samson had told him. He thought Norwood would carry WO ewes and that Awarua would carry 2000 sheep if it was all the same, as he had seen. J was not true that Norwood had been neglected since he got it. In his experience 600 ewes was as much as Norwood wouldl carry in a normal summer He thought £7 or £7 KJs an acre would he the value of the property. Cross-examined by Mr Donnelly, witness said he had had aboot 25 years’ experience of farming. He supposed he owned n third o» the Glenlee Estate, and his brother Oliver had about the same, but Sidney had more than either of them. There was no definite arrangement. He considered Berwick worth £6 an acre. He thought Glenlee was well worth the f 17.000 paid for it He thought it should have been worth £20,000 at that time. He knew Oliver had been talking to Cook about selling Glenlee in March, 1024, two months after they had bought it. He heard Cook gay they should b - able to get £30.000 for it. Witness considered the property was now worth £35,000, and he was closely questioned by counsel as to where the increase of £15,000 came in over the value when they went to Glenlee. He accounted for £6OOO of it as extra value of stock. He expected to find Samson’s properties worth their face value. Pressed closely, he admitted he thought Samson’s properties would be inflated Might ly. He supposed he went down to Awarua to satisfy himself about the carrying capacity of the farm there. BamRon had said be was too nervous to jump the ditch they came to. Witness did not sei damp or w.et on the part of the property where they were. He did not know that that land when he saw it would not carry a sheep and a-half to the acre. He did not hear Samson say to Sidney that the price of Glenlee was too high, nor did he hear Sidney say that Glenlee hacT cost him £35,000. According to the sale note he thought they had to give Samson practically 4000 sheep. If Samson had taken the sheep right away he would have got 6000. Last T>ecpmber he and his brothers were not frightened that they w'ould have to pay something to Samson under the sheep guarantee. This case was not brought originally on account of the sheep guarantee. Mr Adams: What is 25 per cent, of £6000? His Honor: Oh, ask him something easier! Mr Adams: What is 25 per cent.? Witness: Twenty-five out of a hundred. The earlier and profounder question was left unanswered. Oliver Samuel Shale, fanner, living at Norwood, said he was a brother of the two previous witnesses. He went to a farm at Berwick in 1020 and left in 1024. It was his property, bat his brother Sidney had money in it. Witness improved it greatly. Glenlee was quoted to him at £25,000 in the first place. It was eventually put in at £17.000 for purposes of exchange with the Berwick property, which he valued at £6 an acre. On Glenlee they mustered 1600 sheep, -then 200 stragglers and 108 lambs. The run was in a very bad condition when they took it over, and there was not a fence on the place that would stop a sheep. There were a little over 6000 sheep on the place when they sold to Samson. It woul r l easily carry 7000, if not more, at that time. He detailed discussions that had taken place with Samson over the Awarua property. Samson described it as really dairying land, and said there were 80 to 100 head of cattle on it There had been a lot of sheep on it grazing for another man. The Norwood property was also discussed, and Samson said there were 000 ewes and lambs, and also some wethers, on it. The feed all went off the Norwood farm about February. He estimated its carrying capacity now at 600 sheep. "He would not care to give more than £7 an acre for it. The Court adjourned ' July 8. Mr Donnelly commenced hi» crossexamination of the witness Oliver Samuel Shale. Witness said he had been a farmer about 15 years, and the first plate he owned was the one at Berwick Part of that propertv was subject to floods. He put it in Cook’s hands at the latter end of 1923. He had offered it before that. When he sold Berwick to Bowron he considered it was worth £6 an acre. When thev got Glenlee he thought it was worth £17.000 but when he went over it later he considered it worth fully £20,000. He and his brother Charlie had a quarter interest each in Glenlee and Sidnev a half hut. they owed Sidney money. Glenlee property was changed from witness' name to Sidney’s to get witness out of the hands of Cook and Bowron. He got into a nest of hornets with a company affair in which Sidnev had to assist him. He nut Glenlee into Cook’s hands to sell on March 3, 1924. He did not know that there was any price put in that authority to sell. The price of £32.500 was put in bv Cook and witness did not know of it till aftarwards. He did not remember any number of sheep being mentioned in the authority. He did not recollect sign ing it at all until it was produced recently. He would not say Glenlee was cold country The front country was fair owe country. The year they were there they got 50 per cent, of lambs. They lost on Glenlee during the year they had it through Cook and Bowron. The income tax returns showed a loss of £BOO or £9OO. When he wont into the transaction with Samson he thought the place was worth £35.000. He considered the place had cost them £26,000 or £27,000. He explained that £IOOO well spent on a run would add a great deal more than that amount to its value. He did not know that the. sheep for Samson were 2000 short. He did not agree at all that at £35,000 the property was grossly inflated. Tt could be mode pay at that figure if properly handled. He admitted, under examination, that the three brothers had agreed upon £35000 a fair price. He knew he could not trust Cook too far after the first deal with Bowron. Samson said the carrying capacity of Awarua was 2000 sheep and cattle.' Witness told Sidney to go on with the deal on the strength of the carrying capsn’ty. He would not say that he got Charlie to go down to satisfy himself about the carrying capacity of the Awarua

property. He sent him to see if the property was worth the* money asked. He spent some time at Cook’s office trying to make exchanges. The first negotiations wore about exchanging the Norwood and Awarua properties for Dr Fox’s property at Happy Valley. He was of opinion then that the two properties of Samson’s were worth their face value. He might have said he would give Cook his commission if the deal went through. He did not offer Cook £SOO commission on Glenlee if Fox’s deal went through. Cook said he would accept £2OO on Fox’s deal. Fox told him he had had Norwood valued by an expert at £l3 per acre. That expert was Cook. Cook afterwards valued the same property at £6. Counsel proceeded to cross-examine on negotiations for a sale of Norwood with a man Dickson and about inquiries made by a man Andrews. Counsel, examining about the Awarua property, read from a letter from witness to Cook the phrase, “As we have a prospective buyer.” Counsel wished to know who the prospective buyer was. Witness admitted there was none. Mr Donnelly: Why did you lie to Cook? Witness: I should not have done it. your Honor, but I was trying to get particulars from Cook. Counsel: Is that the first lie you have told in this transaction? Witness: Yes, it is the only one to my knowledge. He explained he was trying to get from Cook the original particulars which Cook had got from Samson and which Cook had promised to give witness. Craigie, Samson’s manager on Glenlee, told witness he had mustered 4170 sheep. He found Craigie concealing sheep at the time of the straggle muster. He had 30 concealed in a small boarded-in race, and he did not know how many more there might hove been Craigie said he was acting under instructions. Witness did not agree that the annual loss of sheep on Glenlee varied between 1000 and 2000. Samson would pay Steenson on Glenlee only £2 a week and witness and his brother Sidney agreed to make it up to £4 10s. Afterwards Sidney agreed to give him a lump suifi of £IOO provided he looked after Sidney’s interests and kept a diary and in touch with him with regard to everything. He did not know whether Samson knew of this arrangement or not. Witness, continuing, said he would not care to give more than £7 an acre for Norwood in the state it was in. When he first saw Awarua he thought it would carry as many sheep as had been represented. Counsel reviewed again with witness the evidence he had already given. Witness was briefly re-examined by Mr Adams. Harrie Selwyn Steenson, of Hyde, said he was a sheep farmer. He went to Glenlee ip Deeember, 1923. He had previously had five or six years’ mustering and sheepfarming about the Ashburton and Kangitata Gorges. When he went to Glenlee it appeared to him to be in a most negletced condition generally. A. B. M'Dona’d was managing the run for Smith and Bowron. At the shearing in 1924 approximately 1600 sheep were shorn and there were 200 in the straggle muster. There were also 180 lambs. Witness succeeded M'Donald as manager very shortly after the Shales took over. He cleaned up 13,000 rabbits, though he had expected to get more. They seemed to disappear. They had to work hard to get 4000 the succeeding winter. He thought about 60 miles of fencing had been repaired. The run was in a very much improved condition when the Shales delivered it to Samson, and the front' country was getting into heart again. Craigie had been in charge of the station since Samson took possession. Witness was asked to look after the Shales’ interest in Glenlee until the stock was delivered. While he managed Glenlee he received £4 10s a week, and he told the Shales he did no. want his salary to come down. Later it was agreed he should accept £IOO, and he understood Samson was to pay something towards his salary in addi tion. The Shales said if he ctuck to the thing and made a success of it they would compensate him by way of a bonus. He understood he was to work Jor Samson and be paid partly by Samson and partly by the Shales at the same time. Continuing, witness said Samson paid him £3 a week. For the Shales he was to look after the stock and report if anything went amiss. He told Craigie he did not want to go behind his back, and that they would : ve a thorough understanding before he wrote. When Samson took possession he thought Glenlee was capable of carrying between 7000 and 8000. He would call Glenlee typical merino country. He would not say it was cold. He did not remember receiving any tetter from the Shales definitely promising money. He failed to extract a promise in writing. Olivei Shale told him he would give him £IOO over and above the £IOO promised as a personal tatter if Oliver did well in Glenlee and other investments. To Mr Donnelly: They lost 700 sheep out of 3300 the first year he was there. The next year the figures showed that they lost 2000 out o.“ 6000 sheep. He pointed out that sheep could be lost by other means than by death. He thought there might be another explanation of the shortage. He detailed the work done on the run by Charles and Oliver Shale. He told the Shales he was only getting £2 a week from Samson. It was later on he was to get £3. He did not draw any money from Samson till he left about Christmas, and it was then that £3 was arranged. He had had seevral little arguments with the Shales such as one was apt to have, but he was satisfied with his treatment. Mr Donnelly said that Samson hud paid Steenson, but he did not know that Steenson was being paid by the Shales. The vital point was whether the solicitors knew about this £2OO tha' had been promised. Mr Adams said he was prepared to stake his own oath that from the beginning it hnd been known that Steenson represented the Shales on the run. James Milne, former, of Kapuka, Invercargill, said he had had considerable experience as an expert valuer. He was a director of the Southland Farmers’ Cooperative Association. He had been farming 40 years In Southland. lie thought a property like Samson’s at Awarua would look its best about February. He spent a full day on the property in November and again In May. He would describe the farm as very poor, disappointing country. A terrible lot of it was just waste, lie gave 10s an acre as full value for the place, Including dwelling-house and Improvements. He did not think it would carry above 300 sheep. It was not sheep country. In part of It they would get lost In the swamps. It was not a dairying

farm, and would not support more than 30 cattle. About 300 acres of it was capable of being used for farming. It was not impossible to draiu the rest of it, but it would not warrant the expense. That applied to 800 or 900 acres. The property was not adapted for close settlement. He could not see any prospective source of value from the place. Last winter had l*een an exceptionally good one. He would not say the place was neglected when he saw It. There was nothing t- neglect. Mr Hay cross-examined the witness after the Tuncheon adjournment. Witness said he would not be surprised to hear that in 1911 there was a first jnortgage over the property of £3050. If in 1914 there was a first mortgage of £2050 and a second mortgage of £2694 on it he would say it was overvalued. Mr Adams: Who was the mortgagor? Mr Hay: Mr Sajnson. Witness said that the Government Valuer valued the property at £4930 in 1921 he must have been gravely mistaken. When he went to value the property Shale did not tell him what hifc intentions were. Mr Hay cross-examined as to witnesses opinion of the value of various properties In th** neighbourhood of Samson’s farm. The fencing he saw was no value where It was. He would not contradict anyone who said there were nine miles of sevenwire fencing on the property. There were about 350 acres of the property worth about £2 an acre. . . John Reid Sutton, valuer, of Invercar ; gill, skid he had had five or six years experience of valuing. He had been canning all his Hfe. His total valuation for the Awarua property as it stood with improvements was £9OO. The total value was less than the value of the improvements would be if they were on better ground. It was wet, sour, swampv ground. He did not think the land could be farmed even if it were drained. It was not sheep country. The property looked best when seen from the road leading to it. There no carrying capacity for dairying cows on it at all, as it was not dairying land. Even where there was soil it was of very poor quality. He did not think a stranger could form a fair estimate of that country. Mr Hay cross-examined. Robert Russell, farmer of 35 years experience in Southland, said he dealt in farms. He was a director of the Southland Farmers’ C< -operative Association. He had had a lot of experience of swamp lands, and had Been converting them into farm lands all his life. He had had the Awarua property leased from Mr Samson for a short time. After careful inspection he valued the whoL- concern at £9OO. He would not give that for it himself, but it might be sold for that. He considered that 800 acres of the farm were worth nothing, as it could not be turned into productive land. He supposed there were 50,000 acres of such country in that block running from Greenhills to the Mataura River. They called it “Siberia.” He thought the other COO acres would not carry more than 200 sheep. They would want winter feed. He supposed it would carry about 20 cows. Cross-examined by Mr Hay: It was not a fact that most of the farms along, the road to Samson's were used for dairying. David Marshall, Waianiwa, Invercargill, said he was a farmer, and was Southland representative on the Board of Agriculture. He had been president of the Southland A. and P. Association. He had been farming 30 years in Southland. He examined the Awarua property last May. On approaching the property it gave a favourable impression, and about the house it appeared to be a good proposition. On inspection he changed his mind. Ha valued 200 cares of the land at £2 an acre, including fencing, and 100 acres at £1 an acre. There was another 150 acres that might be brought in to cultivation, but it would cost as much as it was worth to bring it in. He allowed £4OO for house and sheds and £6l 17s flci ditching. .»ia total valuation was £961 17a 6d. Five hundred chains of fencing he did not value because it could carry no stock, and there was no necessity for fencing. The draining of the rest of the farm waß not a practical proposition. The

place ,:ould carry 200 to 300 sheep provided the turnips succeeded well. No part of the farm was dairying land. He did not know any worse country. To Mr Hay: He did not see any nicelooking farms on his way to the Awarua property. There were a few people scratching a living about there, but they were “ doing it very hard.” Southland men would not be deceived by the property, but a stranger would be. An average man going there wuold not necessarily know it was uot sheep country. William Cunningham, farmer, of Christchurch, said he had had about 30 years' experience <is a valuer. He inspected Shales’ property at Norwood on February 3 last. He vould say Norwood was a good fattening farm under proper cultivation. It required to be worked in rotation. It would cost 30s to £2 an .«re to get it into rotation. Last winter the most hindering winter he could remember for 40 years. The property looked remarkably well in April, 1925, owing to the good autumn, and might deceive a stranger. He thought the place would carry 600 ewes when he inspected it, but it would not have carried them well. He valued the property in May, 1925, at unimproved value £6 per acre (£8000), improvements £2250; total, £10.250. The court adjourned till 10 a.m. next day. GLENLEE ESTATE DESCRIBED. DEFENDANT’S CASE OPENED. July 9. William Cunningham continued his evidence from tiie previous day. He said he valued Norwood at £7 13s 6d per acre, capital value. The property had not been properly farmed, nor had a proper rotation of the crops been followed. This property had been farmed by managers. A manager, to control the place properly, should have lived on it. Witness estimated that the carrying capacity of a place could be worked up to 8000 or 9000 sheep. Harrie Selwyn Steenson (recalled) said he told Mr Craigie that his arrangement* were with the Shales, and were that they should pay him a bonus of £IOO. He wa* to get £2 per week from Samson. The bonus promised was for looking after Shale’s interest. There were certain outgoings from the bonus which-witness had to meet. Alexander Williamson said he was an accountant, and a member of the firm of W. E. C. Reid and Co. He had examined a statement with regard to payments which had been submitt&d to him, and had examined Mr Samson’s books of account in relation to the Awarua and Norwood farms. He produced a true copy of his ledger account dealing with the Awarua farm, and also a statement or summary of that account. Trading accounts had not been, prepared. There was simply a list of receipts and expenditure. It was very doubtful if the working of the property showed a profit in any one year. Each period showed a debit balance, with the exception of the last, which included the proceeds of the clearihg sale. With regard to the Norwood property, he had taken out a trading account, as far as the factor would permit. The trading accounts, covering the wholo of the period, disclosed a low of over £2OOO. He had also inspected Mr Samson's accounts with respect to the working of the Glenlee property. The account# showed that the total expenditure on the property up to the end of November last had been £939 15* Bd. Awarua Bhowed that the property, originally cost Samson £B4IB, and during the 10 or 12 years which he held it, it cost him roughly £6400, and during that period he took £I3OO out of jt. The books did not show what the original or total capital cost of Norwood was to Mr Samson. Charles Gordon Teschemaker said he wa* a sheep farmer and resided at Avondale, in Marlborough. He had had 38 year* experience on sheep runs. He had on two occasions undertaken valuation work for the Government. His Avondale property was 25 milea from Glenlee. He commenced the valuation of Glenlee on April 9, and travelled over 12 miles of it that day. There were evidences that the property had very much improved since lie saw it pro-

■viously. Witness said he had managed Glenlee for a long period of years. His father had previously owned it. He aoquired it 49 years ago, and held it till 18 years ago. There was good pasture on the property, and the fences were in good order. In the 12 miles that he travelled he saw only one rabbit and one stoat. He had never seen better pasture country, and was greatly surprised with it. It had improved beyond all knowledge. On the following day he went on to the Grey block of about 2200 acres of freehold. He saw im> rabbits there at all. The fences were in good order, and the country was in thoroughly good heart. When he was managing this piece of country it carried 1200 Woggets or dry sheep. It was not lambing country. He was altogether four days on Glenlee. He also inspected the leasehold land, on the Grey block, and it also was in good order. He was quite confident in saying that .there had never been a sheep lost on this property through snow in 38 years. The back portion was generally looked upon as warm country. Witness produced a statemept showing his lambing averages over a period of eight years, which had resulted in about 60 per cent. %he death rate on Glenlee would oe about 5 per cent. It was worked in connection with Avondale. He did not see why there should be a heavier death rate to-day than there was in bis time, nor did he see why there should be a smaller percentage of lambs. He had valued the property and assessed it at £21,725 for the freehold. There was a goodwill in the lease, which he estimated at £3OOO. The annual rental was £2OO, and it had up to 1940 to run. He had not included fences in the valuations given. There were 40 miles of fencing, which, at Government -valuation, was worth £6O per mile. In the valuation of the fencing he had allowed for the interest of adjoining owners in the fences. He valued the buildings at £1200; this included a dwelling, wool shed, two whares, and shearing machines and engine. The total value of the freehold, leasehold, fenoes, and buildings was £28,325. The property was capable of improvement, bv surface sowing, ploughing, growing turnips, and then sowing in gross. Also, a great deal could be done by irrigation, on the Earthquake Traok block. This would increase the carrying capacity greatly. A safe estimate of the carrying capacity of the run would be 6000 of mixed sheep. During witness’s ownership of the run it carried 8500 merino sheep. He knew of no reason why it should carry less to-day. The sheep at present on Glenlee were of mixed breeds. About six years ago he sold 1300 acres of freehold adjoiningGlenlee, for which he got £8 per acre. He thought the carrying capacity of the property could be increase! if 100 acres of turnips were grown annually, and if this were done 10,000 sheep could be carried. A lot of the oountry oould be made to carry one sheep to the aore. The buildings were in good order. He saw some wool in the shed. The highest number on the bales was 87, and there were about seven bales of unpressed wool. It would require 5000 sheep to produce 87 balea of wool. As far as rabbits were concerned there was nothing to fear at present. He had in the one year taken off 24,000 skins in three months. He was then carrying 8500 sheep. He thought Glenlee would be a good proposition at £35,000. if carrying 0000 sheep. Witness said he had gone

carefully into figures, and had satisfied himself on that point. ne thought the whole of the sheep should be eye-clipped in June. • The hoggets .should be eyeclipped in February. To Mr Doimolly: He understood that quite a number of those who had had Glenlee had failed. He knew that the place had had a bad reputation for the past 12 yeare, and had been advertised for sale in every paper in the Dominion. Even the Otago Witness and the Auckland Weekly News had referred to it ae the “abandoned run.” In witness’s opinion merino sheep would do better on this property than the class of sheep at present running there. He attributed the yearly losses of sheep largely to straying. Boughtin sheep were always liable to stray as thev always displayed a tendency to go back whence they came. He estimated that 6000 sheep would shear on an average 81b of wool, a total of 48,0001 b, which at Is 6d per lb would realise £3600. Lambs from 2300 ewes, at a percentage of 50, would give 1150. The death rate would be 5 per cent., a total of 300. This left an increase of 850. a his would be a surplus, and these would be worth 20s a head, a total of £BSO. The property would also carry cattle, which would produce £l5O annually. It could also produce 30 tons of chaff at £8 per ton, or £240 in all. Ten tons of potatoes could be grown at £B, a total’ of £BO, a grand total of £4870. Interest on £37,000 at 10 per cent, would be £3700. The working expenses would average about 3s per head of sheep, a total of £9OO. When witness was on Glenlee he always had a surplus of stock to sell. During the past 12 or 15 years he understood that the property had not paid. This was largely due to mismanagement.. Men were on it who knew nothing about it—in fact, they were absolutely ignorant of managing the property. It was quite possible to procure merino sheep in Marlborough to-day. He bought 1100 merinos two veare ago. Mr Shipley, to whom witness sold the property, made it pay. Witness then went into details regarding the cost of working the property. The total working expenses would be approximately £IOOO a year. William Macrae said he was at one time a station manager. Ho had been about 30 years in those positions, a good portion of the time being spent in Marlborugh. He had inspected the Glenlee run in company with the previous witness. He went over the whole of the freehold and quite a lot of the leasehold. He corroborated the evidence of Mr Teschemaker as to valuations. It was good, second-class land, and was safe country. He would not expect to lose sheep through snow. There was probably from 800 to 1000 acres of ploughable land. He would be disappointed if he could not get 70 per cent, of lambs. In the North Island on high snow country, he never got leas than 80 per cent., ana frequently 90 per cent. It was bad management to leave merino and other sheep of that class undipped. To Mr Donnellv: He could make Glenlee pay if he haa charge of it. George Henry Andrew said he waa a sheep farmer at Birch Hill, Marlborough. He inspected the Glenlee property from June 6 to 8, and made an independent valuation of the property. He had experience aa a valuer of high oountrv in the Marlborough district, and in North Canterbury. Moat of this work was done

for the Government. He had valued practically the whole of the country adjacent to Glenlee His own property consisted of 23,000 acres of freehold, and it carried 10,000 sheep. He thoroughly inspected both the freehold and the leasehold on Glenlee. He saw sufficient of the leasehold to get a good general impression. Ho valued the property in five different blocks. There was an area of 4000 acres of downs, the altitude being 1500 to 2000 feet, at a flat rate it was worth £4 per acre. The soil on this block was good limestone formation, with occasional outcrops of limestone. It was dotted about with cabbage palms, which was a sure indication of good soil. It was capable of considerable improvement, but it showed evidence of having depreciated in value at some time. He kept a tally of all rabbits seen and saw only nine. The rabbits had really * ceased to be a charge on this property. Witness then detailed his valuation of various blocks. He valued the freehold at £24,033 15s. With regard to the leasehold the fences were valued at £6O per mile. Sheep were very high in value in 1925, and he thought 30s would be fair value for the Glenlee sheep in June. He thought the carrying capacity of the run was 6000—that is, 4000 on the freehold and 2000 on the leasehold—but its carrying capacity could be very much improved by burning and seeding. The buildings and fences were in good order, and the stock was looking well. He considered that a man with a knowledge of that class of country, and a good knowledge of sheep, could make the property pay at £35,000j[ capial value. Merino sheep should be carried. Glenlee was really good lambing country. He would consider that with a merino flock it would be 65 per cent., and with halfbreds about 70 or 80 per cent. The snow belt was 14 miles from Glenlee. It would be a poor lookout for a lot of the country in Marlborough if Glenlee were affected by snow. All bill country sheep should be eye-olipped, otherwise there would be a heavy death rate. Mr Hay, in opening the case for the defendant, said the plaintiff came before the court asking for p, recision of the contract. The defendant absolutely denied any misrepresentations, and contended that plaintiff was not in any way misled by any representations made. His Honor: Why does your client resist rescinding the contract then? Mr Hay said his client had capital at his command, and was prepared to work the property at a loss, with the hope of coming out right ultimately. His Honor said that in addition there was a charge of fraud has been brought against the defendant. Mr Hay said that, whatever the position was, the plaintiff went on endeavouring to deal with these properties. The defence was going to call a number of witnesses. Among thpse who would be called was Mr Samson, who would say that he came into possession of Awarua in 1914. Mr Samson was not a farmer, he had other businesses, and had command of a considerable amount of capital. This property really cost him £13,500. As regards Norwood, the actual coefc in August, 1922, was over £6OOO. The property, when he took it over, was in an absolutley bad condition. He kept no profit and lose account in connection with these properties. Norwood really stood him over £l3|ooo. Defendant got into 1

touch with the Shales through Mr Cook. Shales purchased Glenlee for approximately £15,000, and their attitude was that they gave another property for it, which was over-valued to the extent of £2OOO. If such a property were on the market at £15,000, and was worth, according to the plaintiffs and their witnesses, at many thousands more, and yet no one chose to come and buy it, he would consider there was something wrong. As a matter of fact, these exchange deals were invariably unduly inflated as regards value. The Shales knew that they had to find additional stock, which had become depleted through losses and otherwise. When the property was sold to Samson there was a distinct shortage of sheep, and this was doubtless what prompted them to sell to him. Immediately the interview as regards Norwood, Sidney Shale went to see Awarua, and he returned saying he would not touch it at any price. Later he and his brother returned, and again inspected Awarua. It would be shown by the evidence of Bates, Mr Samson's manager, that nothing was hidden from plaintiff. The property was thoroughly discussed by Sidney Shale and Harrington. The latter would be called to give evidence. Harrington was engaged by Shale to manage the property. Shale later endeavoured to dispose of the property to Dr Fox and others. Anyone who had any knowledge of property at all could not have been misled. They must have known that it would not carry 2000 sheep. As regards Glenlee Shale was advised on November 18 by Samson that the shearing was about to commence. This was a definite notice. On November 24 there was a letter from Shale, and there was not one word about misrepresentation or reciseion. The next day Shale went to Invercargill and endeavoured to work up something about recission, and he saw Mr Milne with that object in view. With regard to misrepresentation it was showiT by the correspondence that Cook had altered the documents. His Honor: Then you make a definite charge of forgery against Cook. There was also a definite written statement by Samson that Awarua would carry 2000 sheep and cattle. Ido not see how you can get over that and say there was no misrepresentation. No one could visit Awarua, and be convinced that defendant’s statement was a correct one. I suppose your case is that it was such a palpable lie that no one could be deceived. Mr Hay, continuing, said there was no deception on the part of Mr Samson. His Honor: I suppose it was that in matters of exchange of properties any of the parties was at liberty to tell a parcel of lies. Mr Hay said there could be no deception. Anyone who took a glimpse of the Awarua could not, have been deceived. The evidence in regard to Awarua, Norwood, and Glenlee as regards values would be placed before the court. They would be able to show that Awarua was grossly under-valued by the witnesses who had given their evidence for plaintiff. William John Hopkins, sheep-farmer and valuer, 9aid he had over 30 years’ experience as a sheep-farmer, and he had had considerable experiehce' as a valuer. He had valued Glenlee and spent four days on the property. He valued it at £6900 with thd fences in. Its value as a going conoern, with the stock included, was £17,232. This waa based on there being no death rate and no surplus sheep to dispose of. He thought it was a place where merino sheep should be kept, and the sheep should be bred on the place. On a valuation of £35,000 there would be a loss of £2OOO a year. As far aa Norwood was concerned, he would value it at £11,842 10s. It was capable of carrying 800 or 900 ewes, but this could be increased to a ewe per acre, or 1300 ewes in all. To Mr Adams: He was now 61 years of age. He was a land agent until about ten years ago. He was a shopkeeper about 38 years ago. He had gone in very heavily for land speculation. He was for some >ears at the head of a land speculation syndicate in Christchurch. Messrs Bowron and Smith were also members of the syndicate. He had never been interested In Glenlee. He thought walues had shrunk a good deal since 1923 * owing to the lessened value of wool and meat. • He thought Mr A. C. Macrae’s valuation made in 1023 was very high at £16,250'. He knew Mr Teschemaker as a straightforward, honest man and a good judge of land values. He thought there were 40 miles of fencing on the property. He would be surprised to hear that there'were 60 miles. He would not, however, be prepared to contradict Government valuers and others if they said there were 60 miles. He would probably see two-thirds of the fences. He did not go over the leasehold. It was very bad weather at the time of his visit, just after a big storm. He estimated that their property would carry 6000 sheep, but that it was worthless to-day. This was not the position in 1925, which was a good wool year. Ho had no doubt that the place was not worth a brass farthing to-day. Other runs in that locality were similarly affected. The bulk of sheep properties were to-day being run at a considerable loss, and several of those be held were valueless. Mr Adams: Would you sell these properties or any of them for nothing? Witness said he would sell them for what he paid for them, or perhaps a little less. He valued the freehold of Glenlee at 10s 6d per acre.. He thought the cost of running Glenlee would be about £3OOO a year. Rabitting would not pay for itself in the summer-time. It was not the practice to make rabbiting pay for itself. To His Honor: He always charged Interest as working expenses. John George Armstrong said he was a farmer residing at Bottle Lake. For 34 years he was In the Marlborough district, adjacent to Glenlee. He went over Glenlee with Messrs Hopkins, Kelly, and Withell, and made a valuation. His total valuation was £13,942. The sheep on the property were a mixed lot. There were some merinos. It looked as if the rabbits had got the upper hand at some stage. He did not consider that the property was worth more than £25,000. Only merino sheep should be kept on Glenlee. He would suggest that 3000 to 1500 merino ewes be procured, and a flock bred from these. His Honor: You would really have to form a new flock. Witness said that waa so. He said he bad had a look at the Norwood property as well. He valued it at £8 5s per acre, or £10,997 In all. He conaidered that under proper management it would carry 1100 ewes. There should have been 100 acres put in turnips last season.

To Mr Adams: He had experience on the Canterbury Plains some 30 years ago, but no experience of land in the vicinity of Norwood. He did not think Norwood was ever worth £20,000. He did not believe in applying the principle of valuing at per sheep per acre. That system was not adopted nowadays by competent valuers, If asked to include the expense of working;-, it would cost 12s per head to carry sheep' on Norwood. Witness said he had had no' experience of high country like He did not agree with Mr Hopkins that that land had depreciated In value since 1918, n It would probably be harder to sell. He.; had heard the evidence of Mr Teschemakei, and the two witnesses who followed him, ; and he did not agree with them. Then*' would find it a different proposition if they, attempted to sell. A good sheep fenqq. to-day would probably cost £IOO per He valued 6000 sheep at £1 per head. IJe did not think they would bring more. Hfc did not think there should be more than, 4000 sheep on Glenlee. The property would not return any profit for a period of five years. he court then adjourned till 10 a.®, yesterday.