LAND DEAL SEQUEL.

Star (Christchurch), Volume LXVI, Issue 20477, 1 December 1934, Page 36 (Supplement)

LAND DEAL SEQUEL.

Action Against Former Director. CLAIM FOR DAMAGES. Per Press Association. AUCKLAND, November 30. Allegations that worthless land near Kaeo had been sold to a London architect in 1930 for the purposes of a fruit farm were the basis of a claim for £1144 damages heard in the Supreme Court. The claim was made by Tom Waiter Thornton, a farmer, of Matamata, against William Henry Ball, a former director of New Zealand Citrus Plantations, Ltd. Thornton agreed to purchase from the company 12* acres for £IOSO, of which he paid £7BO, and he claimed that he had been induced to do so by false representations made on behalf of the company by David Rufus Williams. The issues placed before the jury were: (1) Did Williams make any of the representations set out in the claim and, if so, were any untrue? (2) Did he make them knowing them to be false and with the intention that plaintiff should act upon them? (3) Was plaintiff induced by any of the representations to buy the property? (4) Was Williams agent for the company in April and May, 1930, or was he a sub-agent of defendant? (5) Did defendant know there existed in the literature of the company any of the said representations? (6) Did defendant receive 6 per cent in respect of the sale to plaintiff as commission or as remuneration for his general services? (7) Was defendant aware of and did he acquiesce in or adopt any of the representations, if found to be false, at all material times with a knowledge of their falsity or without belief in their truth? ‘ (8) What damages, if any, was plaintiff entitled After a retirement of two hours* the jury found on the issues that Williams was agent of the company and that the payment made to defendant bv the company was in the nature of commission. Ihe answer to the remaining issues was in the affirmative. The jury found as fact that plaintiff was entitled to damages as claimed. Counsel for plaintiff and for defendant both moved for judgment. The Judge adjourned the applications until to-morrow, when legal argument will be submitted. His Honor will decide after argument whether the finding is for plaintiff or for the defendant.