QUESTION OF VALUE.

Taranaki Daily News, 24 August 1921, Page 6

QUESTION OF VALUE.

THE SALE OF A FARM. VERDICT FOR PLAINTIFF. After a somewhat lengthy hearing, the case in which Cecil H. Harrison (of Hawera),’ claimed £l5OO damages from Mi’s. M. J. Grant (Mokoia), for alleged misrepresentation over the sale of a farm, was concluded in the Supreme Court, New Plymouth, yesterday, before Mr. Justice Salmond and a jury of twelve. A number of witnesses for defendant were heard during the morning, and counsels’ addresses followed.

Reviewing the evidence, His Honor at first pointed out that where a person was misled in entering into a contract to buy a farm there were two courses open; one was to cancel the contract and refuse to be bound by it; and the other was to sue for damages. The first of these remedies was the one usually adopted, but in the present case that was impossible to pursue, because the plaintiff had already fulfilled the contract by talcing a conveyance of the property. He was driven, therefore, to his only remedy, an action for damages. There was a substantial difference between these. In the first it was sufficient to prove that the statements made to him were false, and induced him into the contract. Where a man was suing for damages, however, the position was altogether different. He was bound to prove that not only were statements false, and misled him, but also that they were wilfully false, and made with the intention that he should act upon them. It might have been expected that the law would put the onus on the vendor in regard to malting such statements; but a vendor could make statements as carelessly as be liked so long as he made them himself.

In this case the representations complained of were set out in black and white in the authority for sale given to the ’and agents. They were, first, that the propertv was carrying 34 cow?, 16 young stock and 7 horses, and, secondly, that the carrying capacity was 30 cows and horses. Taking the first statement: There could be no doubt that it was made with the intention that it should be communicated to the purchaser, and that it was communicated .In Harrispn. Was it a true statement? Probably the jury would come to the conclusion that it was not, in fact, true, but. on the contrary, misleading. Interpreted, it did not mean how many cows were walking about on the farm at the time of giving 1 the particulars, but how many cows the property was carrying; that was no doubt what Mrs. Grant meant to convey. It was true that David Grant expressed the opinion that, the statement was true. It was incorrect, however, as it had been admitted that the 42 acres were used in conjunction with an adjoining area of eighteen acres, leased from a Maori, and the two properties were treated as a single dairy farm. There was no one property, therefore, which was carrying 34 cows, 16 young stock, and 7 horses. Mrs. Grant was perfectly well aware of the use being made of the eighteen acres. Her defence was that, though the statement standing by itsel’ on the letter of authority was misleading. . the true facts were disclosed, and the written statement should never have misled Harrison. Were the true facts disclosed? That was what the jury’ would have to consider.

They were asked to believe that, after filling up the document, Mrs. Grant, in handing it to Campbc-11 (land agent), told him that though she said the property was canying 34. cows, it was not actually carrying lhar number, as* another property was being used. Why should Mrs. Grant have made that statement? What she now had to prove was that the written statement fnade by her x was corrected by something said to Harrison and to Campbell. 'Flicreforo, defendant had endeavored to prove that this necessary information was given to Harrison by David Grant. This was one of ihe fundamental facts of the case, and the question was whether Grant made a complete breast of it, and said to Harrison that the farm was not carrying all the stock, and that another jiaddock of 18 acres was also used. If he had done so he effectively corrected his mother’s statement in the authority, and if he did not, Mrs. Grant’s statement would stand as it. was in the authority. On this point there was direct conflict of evidence. On the one hand there were the statements of Harrison brothers, and P»ates, and, on the other, there was the testimony of David Grant. The Harri-

sons and Grant were interested persons, but Bates, Who was an independent party, had said that at that time he did not understand that the 18 acres were used in conjunction with the 42 acres. In analysing the evidence as to how far rhe true facts were disclosed to Harrison, His Honor said there was no doubt Grant did make some reference to the paddock on the other side of the road. Whether it was explained by him that the 18 acres was part of the dairy farm, and necessary !o keep the stock going, was another aspect of the affair. It was also necessary that a vendor should have a correct statement of the stock on the farm at any particular time, as this was of significance in determining the carrying capacity. Defendant, presented a double defence. She first contended that the representations made were true, and .that, if they were not, she had believed them to be correct. Was it a true statement? And was the capacity of the 42 acres really 30 cows and horses? The best way to distinguish the carrying capacity of a dairy farm was by actual experience. Defendant could not speak from this point, as she had never farmed the 42-acre property by itself. On the other hand, Harrison had, and he had given evidence that he experimented with disastrous results. He now said its capacity was nothing like thirty cows. After two and a half hours’ retirement, the jury returned a verdict in favor of plaintiff, z awarding damages amounting to £461 6s. Judgment was accordingly entered for this amount, with costs.