EXCHANGE OF FARMS.

Star (Christchurch), Issue 16907, 5 December 1922, Page 8

EXCHANGE OF FARMS.

FARMERS’ DISPUTE IN COURT.

William Arthur Taylor. Christ- I church, farmer, in the .Supreme Court before his Honor Mr Justice Adams I to-day, sued Gerrit van Ascii. Christchurch, farmer, for specific performance in respect to an exchange of J The statement of claim, set out thai in October last plaintiff agreed to bu»from defendant a farm at the Styx for £3797 7s fid. subject to a mortgage oi £2900, plaintiff to sell to defendant plaintiff’s farm at Kirwee for C4OC>? ss. subject to mortgages of £5350. do fendant. as equality of exchange, to pay plaintiff £IOO and give live ami dead stock on the Styx farm. Defen dant refused to complete the contract. Plaintiff asked for an order instruct, ing defendant specifically to perform the agreement. The defence! was that defendant was induced to enter into the agreement hv the following misiopresonrations : in; That thew was very httle twitch on the part of t.he Kirwee farm not in spec ted hy defendant; (b) that the part of the Kirwee land not inspected by defendant was iu good order; (c) that there were no «tones or shingle on the Kirwee farm : (d) that that farm would carrv one ewe and a half to the acre. The day after the agreement was signed, defendant further alleged he inspected the whole of the Kirwee farm and ascertained that the repro sentations were I also, and he then gave notice rescinding the agreement Mr J. H. Uplmm appeared"’for plaintiff. and Air M. J. Gresson for defend Plaintiff denied that he had made the representations alleged by defendant. He said that defendant had inspected the whole of the Kirwee farm seen that paddocks Were full of twitch. As a matter of fact, twitch was discussed, and plaintiff gave bis opinion as to the best means of eradicating it. To Mr Gresson: Mr H. TT. Cook had had put through three exchanges for witness during the past five months. I be list culminating in the arrangement uow in dispute. Witness obtained the Kirwee property on October 18 by exchange from Mr Mehrtens. but had not entered into possession. That exchange was about ten days before the exchange of tlie same farm arranged with defendant . Mr Gresson: Did you pay full commission to Afr Cook on all tlie exchanges ?-—Yes. You are ou oath, and you swear that you paid him commissionf*—Yes. By cheques?—Yes. Have you got the butts?—No. Don’t look at your lawyer; look at me. Do you swear that you paid him?—Witness, after some hesitation, said that he would have to pay Mr Cook commission, but had not done so. You understood .\ou were on oath when you said you had paid?—.l didn’t want to disclose my position. His Honor: Am L to asume that you qualify all your evidence, and that when you don’t want to disclose your position you tell an untruth ? No, jour Honor. Am I to understand that you qualify C only in respect to that part?—What J. said in all other parts was the truth. His Honor: And it’s only untrue where you don’t waut to disclose your position ? Witness continued that Mr Cook had no interest in any of ihe properties witness exchanged. Herbert .Henry Cook, land saleeman said that be introduced the parties in his office. To an. ordinary farmer, it was obvious, at the time of defendant’s visit to the Kirwee farm, that there was twitch iu the paddocks The land was absolutely level, and a person could see from end to end of the farm. He was present when pi ain tiff and defendant visited the farm, but did not bear plaintiff say that part' of the farm was not twitchy The land was the same quality throughout. He could find no stones or shingle on the farm. (Proceeding.)