SUPREME COURT.

Star (Christchurch), Issue 9933, 23 August 1910, Page 3

SUPREME COURT.

CIVIL SESSIONS. Tuksday, August 23. (Before his Honor Mr Justice Sim.) _ The civil sessions of the Supreme LAiurt were resumod at 10 a.m. SKINNER v. BANNERMAN. The hearing was continued of the case William Skinner (Mr Gresson) v. John Gordon Bannerman (Mr Russell), a claim for £4OOO for alleged wilful misrepresentation. Mr Gresson called Henry Seymour, who said that until he went to inspect defendant's property in October, 1909, he had never been in tho North Island, and he knew nothing of bush lands. He was not favourably impressed by the land, but he accepted the representations of the defendant- as to its fattening and carrying capacity. When shorn, the sheep were found to be very poor, the hoggets being: " like rabbits." In reply to Mr Russell the witness said that he had not told the defendant that , tho tallies of the sheep were correct. Joseph L. Radcliffe said that in June, 1908, he had been engaged as. manager of defendant's property. The defendant then told him that there were 1400 sheep on the place, hut he found only 1250. The tally of lambs at docking was G42, but in July, 1909, the total of sheep and lambs was only 1260. The land would not carry more than one and a half sheep to the acre, and' witness had told the defendant that the land Was overstocked. He had received letters from the defendant in May iaud June, ,1909, in each of which reference was made, to the wethers, and an opinion expressed that the land, was overstocked and the feed insufficient. The freehold portion would not fatten wethers, however lightly stocked. In 1908 witness had harvested the cherries and sent 350 cases to Wanganui. They realised from Is to Is 3d per case of 181b to 201b, and he made a loss of £7. In August, 1908, the defendant wrote to him describing the farm as a source of constant worry to him and a curs© which he was most anxious to be free of, even at a sacrifice. Sheep had 'been lost through, worrying by dogs, and the defendant told witness that he must tell the plaintiff nothing of the loss. On the morning of October 18 the defendant asked witness to write a bogus telegram purporting to come from, a prospective buyer, which ho could use to complete the sale. It was written by witness's wife and given to the defendant.

Cross-examined by Mr Russell, the witness admitted having written to the defendant on Juno 15, 1909, that there was plenty of feed and he had great faith that in time the place could be more heavily stocked. On July 10 he had written that there was ''ample feed," the wethers were fairly fat, the hoggets .had improved wonderfully, and the ewes were all that could be wished for so far as condition was concerned. In October he had given evidence in' a legal proceeding that the sheep were all in good condition. When shown the prospectus of the far" witness had said that it was wrong from beginning to end.

Alfred Edward Barnes, a Government valuer, said he had assessed the value of the freehold of the defendant's property at £4015. The leasehold was not worth twopence. The carrying capacity of the land was one and a quarter sheep. It would not fatten wethers as two-tooths, arid the grass was run out and running out. If the representations of the defendant were correct the freehold, which ; comprised "Ifl acres, would be worth an additional £2 10s per acre. In reply to Mr Russell, the witness said that lie had allowed £I9OO for the improvements. The unimproved' value of the land was £2145.

This closed the case for the plaintiff. Mr Russell asked, whether his Honor considered whether a oase had been made out for the jury. He submitted that the plaintiff had not shown to the satisfaction of the Court that the defendant .had, made misrepresentations wilfully and fraudulently and that he knew that they were not true. His Honor said he would reserve tho defendant's' right to- apply for a nonsuit, but he thought the case should go to the 'jury. John Gordon Bannerman, the defendant, said that he had the property in 1907 for £5025.. and had spent roughly £IOOO on improvements. In stating in the. prospectus that the whole country was two-slieep land, he believed that xhat was tho capacity of both the freehold and the leasehold. During the nine months following his purchase the land was harrying 1100 sheep.' Rsdcliffe had never said that the land wa-' overstocked. He had issued the prospectus believing that it was correct in every particular, and it had nob been oriticised by Radcliffe. Regarding tho, incident "of the telegram, the witness said that it was Radcliffe who suggested the use of such a devici), though his description of the writing of the telegram was entirely without loundation.

In reply tc Mr Gressonthe witness attributed the poor condition of the sheen to mismanagement by Radcliffe. During the inspection in October tho witness told the plaintiff that there had been a high mortality and heavy loss in the sheep. The actual loss 011 the farm was very great. John Scott Caverhill. farmer, said that the defendant's farm would carry an average of two sheep per acre, and there was no reason why it should not produce fat two-tootli wethers off the grass. . , , 1 To Mr Gresson: It certainly would not "winter" two sheep per acre, but about a sheep and a half. Lewis W. Ormandv and Charles D. Snow also gave evidence. This was the case for the defence.

[Per Press Association.] "WELLINGTON, August 23. At tho Supreme Court to-day George Johns, for assault and causing actual bodily harm at Westport, two charges, was sentenced to nine months' imprisonment on each, to be • cumulative. Charles Brooks, on two charges of theft at Renwicktown, was sentenced to eighteen months' imprisonment on each, the sentences to be concurrent. Accused was already on probation for theft, and he was ordered to serve the latter period when released from tlie Invercargill reformatory. The hearing of the charge against Michael Tier and Francis Edwin Tier, in connection with the theft of the Leader picture from the Art Gallery, was resumed to-day. The accused gave evidence in support of the alibi- The case' is proceeding.