SALE OF A FARM.

Taranaki Daily News, 18 December 1924, Page 8

SALE OF A FARM.

DEAL AT WESTOWN.

WAS POSSESSION TAKEN? CASE IN SUPREME COURT. The details of a farm deal at Westown were ventilated in the Supreme Court at New Plymouth yesterday, when Mary Ann Lobb and Harry Wallath, as trustees in the estate of Joseph Lobb, deceased, asked Mr. Justice MacGregor to order Charles A. P. Wood, stock dealer and farmer, to complete an agreement he had entered into for the purchase of a 52 acre section and pay the deposit of .£'3so or pay the estate £3OO damages. Mr. R. H. Quillium appeared for the plaintiffs and Mr. C. H. Weston •for the defendant. Decision was reserved.

The plaintiffs’ case, as outlined by counsel and the witnesses, was that Wood owned a property adjoining that in dispute, and that, .presumably with the idea of enlarging his farm, he had made an offer of £l6OO for the section, an offer which the plaintiffs accepted. The terms were £250 cash and the balance on first mortgage for seven years at 5£ per cent., possession to be given on June 1. A contract to this effect was entered into. 'The plaintiffs contended that Wood had taken possession, alleging that his cattle and sheep had grazed frhe property since June 1, and that to facilitate the passage between the two .properties a gap had been cut in a dividing bank and ditch. It was alleged that up to 50 and 100 cattle had at times been on the property, while on one occasion recently there had been as many as 200 sheep. EJECTMENT OF A NATIVE.

Although all the documents in connection with the transfer of the property had not been completed by the due date, the plaintiffs had not felt any anxiety on that account, feeling that since Wood’s stock were on the property, he had taken posssssion. Later, however, they became aware that Wood was making a point about a native being in possession of a small whare on the farm. This fact, however, had been known to the defendant throughout the negotiations and the plaintiffs alleged in evidence that he had acquiscied in the tenancy. Matters were allowed to go on for some time without finality being reached until, on August 4, the plaintiffs were aware that Wood claimed he was entitled to vacant possession of the property. The native was therefore ejected from the whare and the defendant’s solicitor notified of this, but Wood refused to complete; hence the action. The defendant admitted having entered into the agreement for sale and purchase, but it was contended that during the course of the negotiations, when the question of the native’s occupancy of the house was under discussion,* the plaintiffs’ solicitor had said the agreement was cancelled, and further, that the plaintiff Wallath had notified the defendant’s solicitor (Mr. H. R. Billing) verbally of this, stating that written notice would be received in the course of a few days. Failing receipt of this advice, Wood had instructed his solicitor to give notice of the cancellation of the agreement. Wood also denied having taken possession of the property. He stated that he had put his stock in his own five acre paddock to graze, and that it was due to the broken down nature of the dividing fence between his and the plaintiffs’ property that the stock had wandered. He said he had endeavoured in the past to have a proper fence built, but without success. He also denied having told the native occupant of the house that he could stay on the premises and that all he (Wood) wanted was the farm land. What he told the native was that he had not taken possession of the property, and that the native must see Mrs. Lobb about the house and rent. The gap which had been mentioned was not cut in the fence to facilitate the passage of the stock but to extricate a cow, which had fallen. He had not repaired the gap as its presence, made no difference to the fences—thqre were plenty of other (places where the stock could cross. DECISION RESERVED. The evidence given was as to the nature of the dividing fence, Wood’s stock being on the farm, the past and present condition of the farm, the tenancy of the house by the native, and of the negotiations between the respective solicitors to the parties. David Hutchen, solicitor to the plaintiffs, admitted that when he first learned that defendant would not complete unless he could get vacant possession, he said that he had better get out, but he denied saying that the agreement for sale and purchase was cancelled. In reply to Mr. Weston, the witness denied having said that his clients would have nothing more to do with Wood, when he refused to complete on account of the native being in the house. He regarded the humbug as being on Wood’s part and not on that of the plaintiffs. It was also denied that there had been a threat on the part of the plaintiffs to impound Wood’s stock if they remained on the property. He considered they would istill have been able to demand completion of the contract, even though possession of the whare could not have been given. On the completion of the evidence, counsel addressed the courts and His Honour reserved decision.