FARMER CLAIMS DAMAGES

Taranaki Daily News, 6 June 1930, Page 7

FARMER CLAIMS DAMAGES

z- STOCK CARRYING CAPACITY ANSWER AVAILABLE” • NON-SUIT POINTS ADVANCED. -—- / During th© further hearing of the action for damages between Robert ■ Adams and Theodore Bernard Knofflock in the Supreme.,Court at New Plymouth yesterday various item© in the claim totalling £249 were abandoned, leaving the°sums it was desired to recover at £5O general damages and something over £2OO special damages. There was a couriter-elaim for £153 for hay on ■ the property when it was taken over, damage to shelter' bush and to a shed, and loss in' connection with re-stocking

by the owner, among other things. The action was based by Adams upon alleged fraudulent misrepresentation in connection with the leasing of a farm at Kaimata, and he asked for recission of the agreement. At the conclusion of the case for Adams presented by Mr. A. Coleman, Mr. L. M. Moss submitted he was entitled to a non-suit, one of the grounds being that, it had hot. been established that Knofflock had knowingly misrepresented the carrying capacity of the ' place, thereby constituting fraud. In fairness to Knofflock and to Morey, land salesman, against whom allegations had • been- made, counsel asked permission, however, completely to answer the case by evidence disproving the statements of the other side. The hearing will probably be completed to-day. Giving evidence on- behalf of Adams, Joseph W. Burgess, farmer, Tarata, who formerly farmed a property at the back , of Adams’ Kaimata place, said he left Kaimata ' seven years ago after being there three years, Moore then occupied Adams’ place, which was infested About one-third was covered with fern and blackberry. The

property was in mist about the same condition to-day. It had changed hands too much. ': A fire appeared to have gone through the back lately. The only thing to do was to wait till the fern grew again, then burn it and sow the ; area with English grasses. . The quality of the. soil was not bad, provided it were ploughed and sown. He considered it would be cruel to milk more 'than 12 cows on the. place at present. From 30 to 35 acres of the farm, at the "most, was suitable for dairying. . MONEY REQUIRED ON FARM. To Mr. Moss: It' was a' farm upon ' which money . would have to be spent to get it into good order. It" would not be possible to see the farm adequately by standing on the middle ridge. One would have to walk over the whole property. '■ ''.'; The Kaimata district was generally 'described' as light fern country, said Norman .B. Fletcher, who had had 25 years’ farming experience. He had known Adams’ leasehold property for 18 years and was last bn it in March. When Adams left his Cardiff property he told him he could-then get £l4 10s to £l5 a head for Adams’ cows. He considered a fair carrying capacity for the 236 acres held by Adams would be about 12 cows and 75 to 80 ewes. It would depend, however, what it was intended to do with the sheep. One. could • not expect -to get fat lambs from it, only ‘‘stores’-’; it might be possible to increase the .number of sheep to.. "100. ,He considered that a previous occupant had very much overstocked when he had. 43 cows producing 1201 b. of fat on the farm.' A dairyman to-day should pro-, .duce 2561 b. of fat from eabh cow and should aim at a 3001 b. average. Many .farmers ' to-day were accomplishing the latter production. , : ' He said that about 25 acres of-the-front of the farm was suitable, for dairying.' He would not care to' give more than £5 10b to £6 an acre for the place, considering the improvements .necessary. It was usual to compute .the. rent for leasing purposes at 5 per .cent... of . the value, the lessor paying £he rates. . •• To Mr. Moss': He admitted the farm was in a . ragwort district, but‘he knew 'more badly infested localities. He admitted • there was a big difference between Cardiff and Kaimata country, but, fed. similarly at both places, he would riot agree that good grade cows should reasonably drop a third in production -when moved from Cardiff to Kaimata. The Kaimata district was warmer and did not. have the cold* southerlies that Cardiff did. NO EVIDENCE OF FRAUD.' • At "the conclusion of the evidence for Adams His Honour suggested there was ho evidence that Knofflock had dishonestly misrepresented the carrying capacity. Where an allegation of fraud was involved it was not sufficient to impute io Knofflock a knowledge that-he was misrepresenting the position. Such a proposition must be proved. by facts. • ‘Mr? Coleman submitted that farmer ■witriesses had stated it was general knowledge in the district that the farm would not carry the stock represented, i Hi's Honour said it seemed the question of the carrying capacity "of the place was one of opinion and not fact. . Mr. Coleman maintained it constituted fact. He pointed out that fraud embraced reckless or negligent statements.

. His Honour said the only point he had to consider was whether it was a jnatter of fact or opinion. He. needed to be shown some evidence that Kriofflock knew that he made a false stater ment. It had not been shown that he had deliberately misrepresented the position. ' While Knofflock and Morey had a complete answer to the allegations there, was an answer in law as well, said Mr. L. M. Moss. However, in view of the serious allegations that had received publicity and that, unanswered, might harm Morey in his position, he desired that evidence should be heard. Counsel said his application for a nonsuit was based on several grounds. It was submitted that Adams had not discharged the onus of showing that Knofflock had, in fact, not given an honest opinion. It was essential to prove falsity by a definite assertion. If fraud were not proved Adams’ case must fail, for the establishment of innocent misrepresentation was not sufficient. Mr. Moss said the evidence did not establish any misleading statements at all. It merely disclosed that Adams had unfortunately made a serious loss on the property. All the proof of loss possible did not establish fraud. The other side had not ruled out . the possibilities that th- loss was due to Adams’ inexperience of New Zealand farming conditions, to climatic conditions last spring, or to his own neglect or > want of activity, in farming operations.

Adams had admitted he did not bother to walk over the back part of the farm durin J his inspection. It might be that Knofflock might have been wrong in his opinion of the carrying capacity according to experts, but all the experts in the world could not prove he was dishonest in his opinion. “A COMPLETE ANSWER.” “We have a complete answer to the allegations,” continued Mr. Moss. He submitted that the photographs already put in did not show the true condition of the farm generally. Other photographs giving a more adequate idea of its features would be shown the court. At the time Morey saw Adams at Cardiff it was ' well into June. As" ri matter of fact Knofflock did not want to lease his farm. The authority produced was an authority to sell and riot to lease, rind the estimate, of carrying capacity "mentioned" in it was bafeed. ori the honest opinion of the salesmanthrough' whom Knofflock purchased the place. After Knofflock had agreed to give Newton King, Ltd., an authority to sell he heard nothing further for two months and he made arrangements for a man named Moriarty to share-milk on the property. It. was a complete answer to the case that-Moriarty-had been prepared to put on to the farm straight away 25 cows and 200 sheep. In the meantime, however, Adams came along and, though he was not keen to do so, Knofflock gave him a lease. It had not been mentioned by the other side that in accordance with, the terms of the lease there had been an arrarigement whereby Adams was to burn and re-sow. the fern and, scrub land with 351 b of grass seed per acre to be supplied free by. Knofflock. Another point not previously mentioned was that during the 12 months Knofflock was on the' place he and two other men had cut scrub on a 50-acre patch.A grea,t point had been made of the high rental charged, Knofflock was to get ; £2OO a year, but he had . to. pay £B2 16s ‘ in interest, £1 18s in insurance and the cost of grass.seed for 70 acres when Adams required it. No account had been taken of labour, ccsts totalling £lOB paid by Knofflock before Adams took-possession, arid no account was taken of £lOO paid off Knofflock’s mortgage. HAD NEVER BEEN MADE. The. misrepresentations alleged had never been made, said counsel. The authority to sell had been filed away at Inglewood and had not been used in connection with the lease. Morey had not looked at it or its estimate of the carrying capacity. He knew the Kaimata farm well.. Knofflock would deny that in October he told Adams the-place would carry 20 cows and 300 sheep. Morey’s advice to Adams had been not to run more, than 15 cows-and 150 sheep the first year. The advice had been given because of the absence of root crops and because he considered it would be better for Adame to start in a small way. Counsel pointed out that in the 1928 season Knofflock gradually increased his stock on the Kaimata property till he . had on it 55 cattle and nearly 200 sheep, mostly ewes. He lost only ten sheep and when the rest were sold they were in good condition. After Adams left the property Knofflock put on to it 223 sheep and one horse and gradually increased the number of cattle till there were 71 head. He had done this in spite of burning the fern area that Adams should have burnt. Therefore the stock had been carried on about 186 acres. In evidence Theodore B. Knofflock said he bought the place from,Newton King, Ltd., for £1774 in 1928, with £5OO cash. There was a mortgage at 6J per cent. At his suggestion it was, arranged that he should reduce the amount owing by £lOO a year. The price was equal to £7 Ids an acre. He considered he made about £4 10s a

week out of the property during the period he farmed it. He just stocked the farm and sold when he could at a profits There was high fern at the back of the property when he took over. He cut tracks and dr >ve the sheep and cattle' into, it. One man was for about three months. It had been intended to burn ard sow the area.

When Gibbs and Morey, of Newton King’s, Ltd., brought Adams to him and suggested a lease nothing a,bout carrying capacity was said in his hearing. At the time Adams t went to see the place there were on it 50 cattle and. 180 sheep;Witness complained that the first he knew of the sale, of Adams’ stock was when he saw an advertisement. -After confirming his impression that it was Adams’ sale he put the bailiff in at Kaimata to get the rent.