DISPUTE OVER FARM

Wanganui Chronicle, Volume 74, Issue 191, 14 August 1931, Page 5

DISPUTE OVER FARM

MISREPRESENTATION ALLEGED MATTER FOR SUPREME COURT Throughout yesterday the Supreme Court at Wanganui was occupied with a case in which Alfred Emmett, of Palmerston North, proceeded igainst William Gardiner, of Hamilton, for damages amounting to £7lOO, in lieu of recission, on the grounds of misrepresentation as to the carrying capacity of a farm of 132 t acres at Koroniti, 26 miles up the Wanganui River. Appearing for plaintiff were Messrs P. E. Baldwin and A. Af. Ongley (Palmerston North) and for the defendant, Air C. L. Mac Diarmid (Hamilton).

At the close of the day’s sitting the case for the plaintiff was concluded. Continuing his evidence Alfred Emmet said that on returning to the house after having inspected the farm he had asked Gardiner what the carrying capacity amounted to. He had been told that the farm could carry 2500 sheep. A' that time the farm was carrying 2350 sheep. It was guaranteed that the farm-was carrying not less than 2100 sheep and that it would carry up to 2500. The agreement had been made ap that night. Witness said that he had not asked to see the sheep returns. The agreement had been finalised on July 5, at Wanganui. Before the agreement witness said that h had checked the implements but that he had not checked the stock as they had not been mustered for him. Gardiner had said that it would have been impossible for him to have mustered the stock as it would have been the best part of a month’s work. His Honour: When did you have a muster? Emmett: At shearing time. Defendant was not there. His Honour: You were looking for trouble weren’t you? Emmett: I never expected a shortage. His Honour: Did you not tell the defendant that you were going to muster? I cannot understand the casual way in which the agreement was made. Manager on Farm. To Air Baldwin, Emmett said that he had sent a nephew up to the farm in July until he could get a manager. His nephew, Ronald Alitchell, had not been well acquainted with sheep. Later in the year Emmett said that he had got a manager, named Bell. Bell had gone to the farm in September. Ho, Emmett, said had gone to the farm in October. At that time the sheep had been in low condition and there were several dead sheep lying about the paddocks. Emmett said that he had tried to get feed for the sheep but had. been unable. The first tally of the sheep had been after shearing time when mere were 2054 sheep on the property. As this was considerably below the number he had. believed to be on the farm he had gone to i’almerston North and nau seen Gardiner. He could get no satisfaction from Gardiner and so had consulted. a solicitor. In answer to his Honour Emmett said that sheep at that time had been worth about 30s each. His Honour: At that rate you would have lost about £840? You must have been a pretty docile man if you would stand that. Air Baldwin said that Emmett had been instructed by his solicitors nut to take action. His Honour: Was he going to throw £B4O away? 1 should imagine that dur* mg these times it would be worth having. Mr Baldwin said that that sum would come in under the claim for damages in respect to the property. Continuing lus evidence Emmett said that no sheep had gone off the property without knowledge of himself or his manager. Cross-examined by Air C. L. AlacDiarmid, Emmett said that he had. received reports as to the progress ot the fanu from his manager from time to time. Emmett had only visited the property at intervals. The manager knew as much about the farm as himself. When Emmett had inspected the farm he had not. seen a great number of the stock. He had not said that the stock were in pretty good condition. He had been advised by the defendant to get a certain manager but he had been unable to do so. He could not remember whether he had stated that he was satisfied with tho total of the cattle. His Honour observed that the manner in which the contract had been undertaken looked as if it had been done by children. In answer‘to a question Emmett said that he had been taken on to one or two paddocks and the tally of the sheep in them had been in accordance with the figure given him by Gardiner. Shortage Not Understood. Emmett said that his nephew had been in charge from July to September. Witness had not been there while his nephew had been there. He had seen the farm about. Christmas time. He had not been on the farm when the shearing had been done. When he had found out that there had been a shortage of sheep he had informed Gardiner. He had asked Gardiner “What about it?” but Gardiner had said that he could not understand the shortage. His Honour: You could have made him understand by making him pay £B4O. He had agreed to pay you for any shortage of stock. la answer to counsel Emmett said that he had not demanded that Gardiner should make up the shortage because his solicitor had not been sure whether h e could have succeeded. Emmett said that in January of this year he had consulted another firm of solicitors. Witness then said that it would have made no difference to the sheep how the farm had been managed. He had told his nephew to “look after things.” Mitchell had not attended to the fences but Bell had. Witness did not think that it was necessary to sow turnips. H e had sown rape with grass He admitted that it would have made a difference to the carrying capacity of the farm had he sown turnips. He had known that some of his stock had strayed before the shearing of 1929. The farm had been well looked after' since he had taken over the property. The stock were in good condition and the joung cattle had been earmarked. I he extent of the ploughing had been about 12 acres. Re-examined witness said that he had only had about two year's experience on country of the class of the land at Koroniti. Further Evidence. Victor Williamson, a land agent, said that in 1929 he had had Gardiner’s

farm for sale. The specifications had show that the farm ‘would carry one wet and one dry sheep to the acre, together with 175 cattle. He had not inspected the property with Gardiner and Emmett but had stayed in the house. Cross-examined, he said that he had not been present at tho settlement. Emmett had later told him that he, Emmett., was going to the farm to take a tally of the stock.

Ronald Alitchell. the nephew of Emmett, said that when he had gone to look after the property Gardiner had told him that a few sheep had strayed off the property. had also told him that the hoggets had been affected by lung worm. Alitchell had been told that the sheep were to be left where they were for the winter. Some of the gates had been open on the property. When he had gone to the farm first he had seen about 50 dead sheep. 15 had died during lambing. No stock or stragglers had left the farm while he was there. Wilfrid Dickson, an accountant in the firm of Dalgety’s, supplied the returns of the stock and the sales made during the time the farm had belonged to Gardiner. Hugh Cleland, Inspector of Stock, Wanganui, produced a return of stock put in by Gardiner for the y£ar 1929. In this he showed 1567 sheep. Air AfacDiarmid: He found that owners of stock were careful in the returns of stock. The forms were accurately filled up. To Air Mac Diarmid: It was an offence not to be correct. They signed a declaration that they were correct. Commissioner Walter Harry Bowler, of the Native Land Court, produced the title file of To Tuhi No. 1 B block. There were a little over 306| shares in tho block. Ropata Rangitahua had a holding of l-6th of a share, and afterwards acquired an interest by succession of 34 more shares. He now had

3 2-3rds shares. Further returns were submitted by Air Dickson, showing weights of wool, etc., in respect to Emmett and Hammond. He did not know whether Hammond w s dead.

Robert Alexander Bell, shcepfarmer, Wanganui River, and manager for plaintiff, said that he took charge of the farm on September 2, 1929. The farm was very short of feed and showed indication of being overstocked. The condition of the sheep was poor. The number of dead would be hard to estimate. He tried to find grazing elsewhere, but it was impossible to find it. It would not have been practicable to get, hay up on the boat. He let his employer know the state of things by letter. The sheep were in too poor condition to get away to sales. His employer visited the farm about the middle of September and made an inspection, deciding that- the stock were too weak to do anything with. He would consider that not more than 20 Odied. He attributed these deaths to shortage of feed. He took a tally of sheep first of all in November, 1929, at shearing time. The tally showed 1032 ewes, 474 hoggets, 34

rams and 484 lambs. There may have been a small number of wethers among the ewes. There were no crops on the place when he went, there. He. estimated that about 12 acres had been cropped the year before. He got 19 bales of -wool the first shearing. That was a very light clip from 1500 sheep. The return of 484 lambs from 1000 ewes was a poor return. His Honour: Fifty per cent, isn’t it? Air Ongley: Between 40 and 50. Witness added that 75 per cent was expected from that country. There were 1700 sheep on the property including lambs. That was too many for the property. From 1000 ewes he had got 690 lambs in 1930. He considered that wool returns were heavier where there was a lesser number of sheep on the property. He had done better with 1700 sheep than the number he had had before. This year he had 600 ewes, 246 hoggets, 404 wethers and 25 rams. It could possibly carry 150 more dry sheep. The farm had gone back slightly with manuka. He hid received no reports from the neighbours that his stock was on their properties. He had 154 cattle on the farm, and had sold 18 since he had been there. He could not get more cattle on the- farm. If 400 acres had been top-dressed he could have carried another 300 sheep. Cross-examined, witness lid that he had only the assistance of one cowboy during the lambing; since then ho had been working alone. If ho ha*, assistance to erect fences and cut scru' 1 ' the farm would have shown better results. There had not been much money spent on labour. Air AfacDiarmid pointed out that there had been a considerable difference between the figures returned to Dalgety’s by Emmett and by the witness. Emmett’s figures had been larger. Continuing his evidence, witness said he had grubbed one paddock of gorse since ho had taken over the the farm. 4Vhen he had taken over the farm there was gorse on the farm five or six foot high. Since ho had taken over the farm the fences, with the exception of one, were worse. Sheep could get out through the back lence unless it was kept in repair. It was not possible to reach the fence at all points, and there was a permanent danger of sh >p getting through. All tho two-year bull calves had been attended to. It had been impossible to wean all the young calves becausi of tho lay of the country. Witness considered that the calves should be weaned. He had done no ploughing for winter crops. The machinery was in bad repair. Re-examined by Air Ongley witness said that if another man had been put on for cropping it would have men a gamble as to whether he got his wages. The sheep would go through very few places where he could not reach th • fences. They could only get on an abandoned property on which he mustered every ye: •. Inferior Pasture. Frederick Allen, a valuer, said that tl; ! ‘‘’rm produced inferior pasture. In March, 1929, 118 acres could have been ploughed. The carrying capacity at that time would have been a sheep and a-half to the acre, mostly breeding ewes. That was <, fairly liberal estimate, and -worked out at about 1400 sheep altogether. He would certainly say that the farm would not carry 1500 breeding ewes and 800 dry sheep on the grass land. Had they been put on they would have been starved and came out in very poor condition. Witness considered that 80 per cent would be a liberal estimate for that country for lambing. If you only got 484 lambs out rf 1500 ewes what would you think of that? asked counsel. Witness: There would be something wrong. Witness considered that the average sheep should produce about seven lbs of wool to the fl ’e on that class of country. If they had only averaged four he would have considered the

sheep had not been properly done. Witness’ value of th*' farm at that ■ time would be £4030 with and £1319 at unimproved value. He would not put the valuation as high , now. Ho had made a fairly low valuation in 1929 as the farm was ‘n poor condition. Cross-examined by Mr Mac Diarmid, witness said that if turnips had been . grown it would have increased the carrying capacity. The carrying , capacity had not. decreased since he had first seen the farm two years ago. Tho more paddocks one farm had the more sheep it could carry. Assumi g that the fences /ore defective it would affect the carrying capacity. Re-examined witness said that, with careful handling tho sheep could have been moved from paddock to paddock in July. It would not have increased the carrying capacity’ but it would have given better results. At. the present time the fences woul ’ hold the bulk of tho sheep. Joseph Soler, a farmer in tho King Country', said he had h id farming experience in tho vicinity of the Wanganui River. He had done a lot of -aluing. Ho had been over tho Koroniti farm with Mr Bell and Mr Allen. He considered there were 700 acres of reasonably good pasture, 950 at the very outside. The grass was ' just fair” when he had examined the farm. Tho carrying capacity of the whole farm was about 1400 or 1500 sheep. Of that number about 500 would bo breeding ewes. On the main points ho and M.' Allen had agreed. Cross-examired, witness said his two inspections had boon made within the past fortnight. This inspection gave him the impression that the property h' <1 not been farmed well for quite a number of years. Mr Soler’s evidence concluded the plaintiff’s case. Defendant’s evidence will be heard at 10.30 o’clock thi morning.