VALUATION OG STOCK.

Poverty Bay Herald, Volume XLI, Issue 13393, 29 May 1914, Page 4

VALUATION OG STOCK.

A piSPUTED CLAIM

A dispute arising" out. of a s-ile of .chattels and stock, in cbmiection with a farmer' at Patutahi was inquired into by Mr W. A. Barton jS.^., to-day. Thomas Trumper '(Mr Dawson) claimed from Andrew Hood (Mr- E. H. Mann) tlie sum of £171 19s 6d, being the difference between the valuation made by Aliy A. S. Parker, on August -25. J. 913. arranged between the parties, aiid £207, which represented tho valuation of certain chattels "and slock oil September 5/1912. ;■■• ■''.''.-■ Ini opening Mr Dawson saicb* that plaintiff m 1912 leased a.'fyrm from defendant, ">y,ho'. wai?. to finance .the concern^' Last year " defeiidjtiit took tlie fai'iri over again. Plaintiff had frequently asked defendant for a settlemenit, but th^ latter h(id not prepared a|ny state.riient. When Mr 0. ,G. Piesse was negotiating for the purchase of the farm lie said matters between tlie present parties would have' to be settled. Witjh „the view to settlement Mr A. S. Parser maqle a valuation, and., it *n*as agreed thait defendant should pay olaintiffs the difference 1 between Mr Parker's valuation and £207, which was the value of the s.tock,. etc., wjieii defendant took the farm oyer again. Plaintiff said that on ' September 21,, 191{£ lie took' a farm] at patutahi from; defendant. It was a verbal lease, and' defendant supplied stock. They mutually agreed as to the value of the stock, which was set dowri at £^07. He* continued to lease the pi-operty until May, 1913. '< On Januaiy 22, a* proper Wse ! was dra>vn up. At tlie sairie time' a bill of sale of £276 15s over stock, etc., was compiled: In ISlaiy defendant took; the lease over. At the sairie" titoe plaintiff handed back ' certain istbeky "" The pigs and'fseparator were' pl&iritiff's. ■' He continued, to work the place untfl August. .Defendant did not fcive him- definite wages, "but gave him £16 to keep him going: ' Defendant to;ld' plaintiff; to' g° on the place, - and ho (plaintiff) 'would )oseyiiothiiig by it. Plaintiff; improved tlie -place .while he had ..it, paypigi'ifor the lmprovemeiits' Jiiinself! Defendant gave him a statement about the. end of tSioy 6r ..early iii Juiie, .but it was not correct. Defendant drew all but three cheques for milk supplied". to the factory. On August <_6' there >Vas a. meeting between plaintiff' defendant, and -Mr Piesse. Mr piegse arranged to- purchase tjlie. propeity, provide^ cqiUd come to terms with Mr Hood, ' an.cC. would*; see plaintiffs interests protected. -"Piesse ai'Tariced to buy, provided defendaiit a ; gi*eea to pay plaintiff the difference between the first valuation and a valuation to be made. Plaintiff" agreed to this,'>.also to waive all claims against defendant, on account of ••-the fai*ni. Plaintiff had endeavored to meet defendant, b\i,t was unsuccessful. He instructed, his solicitors 'to, write, and the^' received a reply, stating that ''defendant woujd bo pleased to meet plaintiff. He had never met defendant, and had not discussed .tlie matter with him. TaMr'Ma.hri: Tlie lease was for four years; but plaintiff had the option of .throwing it up at the end of the first year. He started, without, capital, and the defendant supplied Sjtock. . Clause. ' 11 , iii tho lease f stated f, that, defendani was not liable foi* improvements. ' (Case proceeding. ))