DISPUTED BOUNDARY.

Sun (Christchurch), Volume V, Issue 1340, 30 May 1918, Page 9

DISPUTED BOUNDARY.

ALLEGED MISREPRESENTATION. ACTION IN SUPREME COURT. Before his Honour Mr Justice Herdmau, in the Supreme Court this morning, there was commenced the civil action: Robert John Corbett (farmer, Southbrook) and another v. George Thomas Jones (farmer, Papanui), a claim for specific performance. Mr Wilding, with him Mr Rowe, appeared for the plaintiffs, and Mr S. G. Raymond, with him Mr Johuston, for the defendant. The action arose out of the sale, in May, 19.14, by the plaintiff and his late father to the defendant of a property situated at Ashburton. The property had been purchased by Messrs Corbett from Arthur Ernest Hart, aud comprised some 918 acres. Defendant contracted to purchase the property as it came from * Hart; but he stated that when he visited (lie lan I and was shown over it.by the pis in'iff it was definitely represented to 'siin ;! nt. the 9,18 acres comprised 1G ]■■: ':.-. and was bounded by a certain ;; ; "eu: pon the western side. On the fa! '•• of those representations he conip'eied the contract and entered into possession, paying £5500, the portion of the purchase money (£21,500) required by the agreement. The balance was to be left on the property, at 5-4 per cent, per annum, until March, 1918. Interest was to be paid half yearly. Subsequently, according to the defence, Jones found that his purchase was not bounded by the western gorse fence, but that an area of 60J acres of, very inferior river bank land, lying outside the fence, was included in the 91S acres, although there were 16 paddocks inside the gorse fence. Defendant had paid interest up to September 7, 1917. The plaintiffs now sought interest to March, 1918, and payment of the balance of the purchase money, an order for specific performance. Against this, defendant' stated that; the value of the land outside the | fence was less'by £l7 of- per acre than! the other, and that while the interest was paid in full up to September, 1917, it had been under protest and with full reservation of his rights in regard to the matter of the boundaries of the land. The £l7- 5/- per acre represented a total of £104.1, which was the value less than the purchase money alleged to havej been contracted for the land outside the fence. Defendant counter-claimed for that sum and interest paid upon it, a total of £1250 3/10, alleging that by the untruth of the plaintiffs' representations (made without an honest belief in their truth) the' warranty'was broken. To facilitate the work of the Court, Mr Raymond, for the defendant, opened first. (Proceeding.)