FARMER IN COURT

Wanganui Chronicle, Volume 76, Issue 115, 18 May 1933, Page 12

FARMER IN COURT

! DISPUTED PROPERTY DEAL —- I MISREPRESENTATION ALLEGED. Praying for the cancellation of contract for the exchange of properties at Marton, and asking for damages on the grounds of misrepresentation, Panny Lurajud, a farmer, proceeded against .Robert Wakefield Harris, land agent, at the Supreme Court at Wanganui yesterday. Lurajud is a Greek by nationality and cannot read or write the .English language. He was represented by Mr. J. Grant. Mr. A. M. Ongley appeared for Harris. Plaintiff claimed that Harris had represented to him that a farm of 357 acre on the Makahau Road, near Marton, was capable of carrying 50 dairy ccws, that it was well watered, and that a stream in the front of the farm ran all the year round. Plaintiff said he agreed to lease the property for three years and 71 days from August 1, 1932, at a rental of £6O for the first year and £ll5 and £192 for the two succeeding years respectively, with the optional purchasing clause at £l3 an acre, and that he gave Harris assets valued at £9OO on the understanding that he should receive £lOO in cash to employ labour on the farm. When going on the farm plaintiff said that the stream dried up before Christmas, with the result that he had no water for his cows and consequently lost money on them. He only received £3O of the if 00 promised in return for his assets, which, unknown to him, were valued at £5OO when the lease was made out, and that he erected cow bails, installed machinery, and sank a well which cost him £253 5s lid. He estimated that he had lost £1238 4s 4d as a result of the transaction and asked that his agreement be cancelled, that he receive £l5OO damages, and the £7O owing him. Defendant held that he had not made out that the land was suitable for dairying and had not persuaded Lurajud into buying it, for Lurajud had seen the farm and made the purchase on his own judgment. He denied that he had said the stream in the front of the property ran all the year round but that he had said there was water to be had from pools while there were several springs on the property. He denied owing Lurajud £7O, saying Lurajud owed him £4l 13s 5d for rent and £lO for ewes, so that the remaining amount, £lB 13s sd, was all that was owing. Ho claimed that plaintiff’s assets had not been valued at £9OO and that although buildings had been erected on the farm they were not worth £235 5s lid. He denied making any fraudulent statements and said he had offered to sell the farm for Lurajud when he complained about the water. The case was adjourned until this morning.