SALE OF A FARM.

Press, Volume LXI, Issue 18364, 23 April 1925, Page 6

SALE OF A FARM.

- *__ — (PEESS ASSOCIATION TBLEGKAJI.I WELLINGTON, April 22. The Court of Appeal is engaged in hearing-, an appeal against a judgment of Mr Justice Sim. The appellants are Thomas Vernon Wilkinson and Frederick Johnston qf Timaru, retired' farmersj and '..the /respondent is Robert Hugh Bis'set, fanner,' of the Nightcaps district. , By an agreement dated May. 7th, 1919, respondent agreed to sell to the appellants a sheep farm 'known as "Avondale," situated near Nightcaps, in Southland, tor £13,260 10s,'of which £2OOO was. paid in cash, and the balance was to be paid on May Ist, 1924. Tho'appellant, Wilkinson, took possession of the farm and worked \l in partnership until July, 1923, when Alexander retired from tho partnership, Wilkinson working on his own account from that date. The commencement of proceedings was a writ to recover a halfyearlv instalment of interest amounting to £316 19s 3d, due on May Ist, 1924. On July Ist, 1924, appellants gave notice to respondent that they had rescinded the contract for tho purchase of the farm on tho ground of misrepresentation. To the -claim for interest they filed a counter-claim in which they alleged that they were induced.to enter into the contract by false and fraudulent representation on the part of respondent. They claimed to have the contract rescinded or, in the alternative, to recover £SOOO damages. The representation alleged to have been made was that the farm, had a carrying capacity of two thousand sheep, whereas, according to appellants in April, 1919, the capacity, did not exceed 1300. .It .was stated for. this reason that tho land was not worth more than £BOOO.

The Judge held that what was said by respondent to bring.about, the contract was simply an expression of opinion, and that it was still his honest opinion that the carrying capacity of the land was 2000 sheep, and owing to the erratic methods adopted by the appellant .Wilkinson, it was impossible to ascertain what was the precise carrying capacity of the land. The Judge also held-that the appellants had not proved that the farm, properly managed, was not capable of carrying' 20C0 sheep, and respondent wa s entitled to judgment on the counter-claim, as well as for interest due. Judgment was accordingly entered for £316 19s 3d, and for £330 10s, the amount of costs. The appellants now contend that the whole judgment is erroneous in point of fact and law.