VALUE OF A FARM

Sun (Auckland), Volume III, Issue 639, 16 April 1929, Page 10

VALUE OF A FARM

BUYERS ALLEGE MISREPRESENTATION JUDGMENT RESERVED *V, di6pute ‘-'oncerning the value of a 33-acre farm at Clevedon, which has occupied. Mr. Justice Blair at the Supreme Court for the past two days, was continued this morning. The plaintiff. Emily Miriam Chestnut (Mr. West) claimed £BOO from William Peter Seaton anti Alice Winifred Seaton for alleged misrepresentations regarding the farm that Mrs. Chestnut bought from them in September. 1927. The misrepresentations alleged were that the farm was not subject to heavy flooding and that it would carry and had carried 30 head of cattle for ten months in the year. Plaintiff paid £ 2.900 for the farm, but now claimed its value was not more than £ 2,100. Defendant denied that there had been any false repre-' sentations, and stated that plaintiff had relied, in making the purchase, on her husband s and her own personal inspection and judgment. For the defence evidence was given to show that Chestnut had objected to levels being taken on his farm by a surveyor and engineer last Saturday. The defendant, William Peter Seaton, said he had told plaintiff that water came across the property from ! the creek and that the place Hooded 1 three or four times a year. He told plaintiff that 22 cows was the most he | had grazed and that he did not think I the Hood did any harm. The case for plaintiff alleged that Seaton was well aware that the farm Hooded heavily and was practically a J ponding area, and also that evidence, i would show that the farm would carry only about sixteen cows. On resuming this morning, evidence was given by E. R. Tylden, who acted as defendant’s agent in the sale of the property. He said the property Hooded a good deal more than he thought. He thought the farm would not carry more than 20 cows. After the hearing of further evidence his Honour reserved judgment.