NGATEA LAND DEAL.

Waikato Times, Volume 104, Issue 17462, 24 July 1928, Page 8

NGATEA LAND DEAL.

EVIDENCE OF ■ VALUE. WHAT THE NEIGHBOURS THINK. DETERIORATED COUNTRY. The case in whi h Nicholas Olach, farmer, Ngatea, is suing James Cochrane Cleland, farmer, Ngatea, for £IOOO damages for alleged fraudulent misrepresentation over an exchange of defendant's property at Ngatea for a farm belonging to plaintiff at Pio Pio, was continued at the Hamilton Supreme Court to-day before His Honour Mr Justice Blair and a jury of 12. Mr J. F. Strang represented plaintiff and Mr E. M. Mackersey defendant. Plaintiff said that Cleland took over 135 ewes and 150 lambs on the Pio Pio property. The ewes were worth about 35s each. Lambs were selling at about £l. He would not deny that he bought them for Ss each, although he had kept them for four months. There were also 40 cows, a number of horses and other animals. Cows Went Back In Condition. \ Under cross-examination, witness said that after his cows had been transferred to the Ngatea property, they had gone back in condition, and after a month he thought he was going to lose some of them. Mr. Mackersey read a letter written by plaintiff to "Cleland, in August, 1927, in which he remarked that the cattle were doing very well. Plaintiff said the reason for this was that finding himself in a hole, he did not want Cleland to know how he (plaintiff) had been had . Plaintiff admitted that Cleland told him he milked his,cows for eleven months, whereas plaintiff usually milked for eight only. Questioned regarding the concrete work, he said there was also the question of length of concrete paths. These went out into the paddocks and were known as " dung waits." The paths were necessary for the efficient working of the farm. But for these, some of the cows would have had to be dragged out of the paddocks with horses.

Counsel read another letter, written by plaintiff to Cleland, nearly two months after he took possession, in which he claimed £l9 10s as due bv Cleland to him.

'Plaintiff admitted that he migtit have been satisfied with £l9 10s at that time.. It was true that up JO this time he had not complained about the carrying capacity of the farm. Tie did refer to it in the letter to Clelamd as k bog-hole. He admitted that when he left t-,te Pio Pio property there was a sum Of £7l 12s 3d owing for rates and ite gave the County Council an order Mn his bonus, which produced only i/>*i odd. He had paid nothing since. _ His Honour remarked that surety there must have been some adjustment on settlement. Mr Strang said he had seen tlic settlement, which was a perfectly clear °Tii answer to Mr Strang, plainttff said Cleland never told him that *Hs two Ngatea properties were worJ-fcd in conjunction. Defendant had Wd him that the property had had /t)0 cattle on it, but it had gone back. Bank Manager's Evidence. Clement Bartlcy, manager of 'he Auckland Savings Dank, said he v,as familiar with the two properties at Ngatea. They were at one time farmed as one property. Neither the nor anyone in its employ gave Cleiaid any information about the carrying capacity or butter-fat production of the Ngatea farms. Grey and one Pr&st were the agents who sold the ff-rm to Cleland- The land was sold at £25 an acre, which represented a losg of £750 to the bank. The bank Was sticking to the present owner and was supplying him with seed and manures, because they regarded him as a "trier." Cleland paid £IOO down and he was to spend £SOO on improvements duftng the first year and £3OO during the second year. There remained on mortgage £3OOO. Witness doubted t-tiat defendant spent £SOO on improvements.

Cross-examined, witness said %at he inspected the property twice vffiilc Gleland was on it, and the improvements were not what he had expected. He did not remember having wrifrten to Cleland to this effect. Mr Strang pointed out that CleHtnd sold out again before the first 12 months were up.

Mr Mackcrsey (to witness): I foke it you have no experience of .land values?

Mr Bartley: Only 45 years f*f it, (Laughter.)

Mr Mackersey: And when yo-*t had Olach in your office, before he took possession, I suppose you were desirous of assisting him all you ct??ild?

Witness: Well, not anxious, but we were not satisfied with Cleland and did not think Olach could be any worse. (Laughter.) Witness said the previous o-fcmers of the property had been bad managers also.

To Mr Strang, witness s??id Olach had done a great deal of £Ood work on the farm. His Honour: There must have been a slump in land in this particular district.

Witness: A great slump. We have had to dispose of land valued at '£9s an acre for £2O. This particular property had come down by about half its price-

William Edward Hale, farmer of Ngatca, and a director of the New Zealand Co-operative Dairy Co., said the farm in question the last lime he saw it, two months ago, wis carrying 35 cows and there was no feed to spare. The land in that vicinity was exceedingly hard to drain. It was waterlogged and had been badly trampled by stock. It would cost some hundreds of pounds to reasonably drain the place. If the whole place was fully developed and the whole area was down in good English pasture the carrying capacity would not be more than 50 to 60 cows. The farm could not possibly in one season have produced 22,0001bs of butter-fat. It would hike it all its time, even if fully developed, to produce 15,0001b5. Witness considered that the present value of the property was about £2O an acre. Got Hold of "Melons." Amns Albert Fisher, farmer, of Ngatca. said his property adjoined that of Olach. He paid £i'J 10s per acre for it. He remembered Cleland taking over his property., He put 02 mixed yearlings on It. He never had 100 cattle on the place at any lime. Witness considered that Olach's property was capable of carrying at the present time only 4 0 dairy cattle and that fullyimproved it would carry from 50 to GO head- Cleland later introduced witness to Olach and his brother. Defend-

ant later told witness ne would be a fool if he did too much work on his property and that he (Cleland) bad got hold of the two biggest melons he had ever had in his life. Edward H. Barriball, another farmer of Ngatea, said he knew Olach's property well. A good portion of the land was wet and rush grown, which made the carrying capacity small. He considered £25 a fair price for the property. The farm had certainly improved under Olach's management. Cleland had told witness he bad no intention of dairying on the property but that he intended to knock it into shape and get out. A good portion of the land was covered with pennyroyal and buttercup. The maximum number of heifers he had seen on the place was 75. There had also been a large number of sheep put there, but they were nearly starved. After Cleland j had sold out he remarked to witness; that he had got a "bird" and that he's was glad to see the last of the place.'| Cross-examined, witness said that heY sold his Ngatea farm in 1919 for £9O? an acre. ] Mr Mackersey: I think you must] have got a melon also. (Laughter.) j Witness: I suppose I must have; but J the farm came back to me. (Laughter.) | Witness was positive that 124 acres'j of . Cleland's land never produced! 22,000 lbs of butterfat. J Herbert Stanley Joll, farmer, Waitoa,' said he bought a number of heifers from Cleland, who agreed to graze them for a month. When he saw them at the end of the month they had deteriorated considerably. Cleland told him to fe«t them away as quickly as possible, that he did not want to give the purchaser of the farm a chance of backing out of the deal. Cleland remarked that Olach was a Dalmatian and he understood he was a great worker. Witness remarked that he would have enough work on the farm to last him for the rest of his life. (Laughter.) William George Ilayward, farmer, Ngatea, and a member of the Auckland Land Board, assessed the value of the farm in dispute at £25 an acre. He did.not think it would ever be possible to graze 100 cattle there even if fully developed. Cost of Development. Howard Fitzgibbon Louch, farmer, Ngatea, expressed the opinion that it would cost £lO an acre to develop Olach's land. The farm was now in better condition than when Cleland had it. When fully improved he did not think it would carry more than 65 cows. Another farmer, Gordon McMillan, who formerly owned the property in dispute, said he sold it during the boom for £SO an acre- He estimated its present milking capacity at 40 cows- If effectively drained and fully developed the farm would probably carry between 60 and 70 dairy cows. Mr Strang: Would it ever be capable for carrying 100 dairy cows? Witness: Never. In answer to Mr Mackersey,'witness said he remembered Cleland buying sonic sheep and later selling them to a butcher. Counsel: And butchers don't buy poor looking sheep, do they? j Witness: They were certainly not| overweight. (Laughter.) j He remembered other sheep that; had to go-off the property to save their j lives. John Taylor, carrier, Hamilton, who formerly farmed the property in question, said he and his partner paid £SO an aero for the land, This was during the boom. They put £2500 into the two sections and all this had been lost. He had not seen the property since he gave it up and never wanted to see it again. There was great difficulty in draining the property owing to the fact that there was no outlet. Witness said he did all the concreting on the farm, and he estimated, with labour, that it cost about £4OO- He had never told anyone that it cost £6OO. He would say that the farm developed to its highest capacity, would not carry more than 70 cows-

After witness had received notice of that action from Mr Strang, Cleland rang him and asked him if he had ever taken 22,0001 b of fat off the two sections. Witness replied that he had not. Cleland said tb.3 bank had informed him that he had.

Ernest V. Quick, assistant secretary of the N.Z. Co-operative Dairy Company, at Hamilton, declared that there was never 22,0001 b. of butterfat taken' off the property. This closed the case for plaintiff.

(Proceeding.)