LAW REPORTS.

Dominion, Volume 4, Issue 1090, 31 March 1911, Page 3

LAW REPORTS.

SUPREME COURT. < i ON BUYING WAIKATG LAND. < ■ \ HOW TWO MEN FARED, ( ( THEIR VEKSION OF THE STORY. < ( Further progress in the Waikato swamp 1 case was made before Mr. Justice Chap- j man yesterday. This was a case in which ' Herbert Carter and James W. Body ( sought a rescission of an agreement with ] John W. Chapman to purchase certain > land in the Waikato. They also claimed .£507 10s. id., deposit and amount paid out of pocket. The agreement was dated February 11, 1910, and, under it, plaintiffs covenanted '. to buy portion of the Hillside Wcodlands ' Estate, near Hamilton, containing from • 150 to 180 acres. The price mentioned j was .EG per acre. < • The Allegations and the Defence. At the opening of the case it was alleged that dctendant had induced ■ plaintiffs to enter into an agreement '• by false and fraudulent representations in regard to the quality of the land, access to a public road, and liability to flooding. The defence was a denial of misrepresentation, an admission as to i certain improvements having been i made, a statement that the disputed roadway (known as Telephone Koad) had been shown as a public road on i a subdivisioual plan which was the ] basis of a sale of 1500 acres of the block by the New Zealand Land Association, Ltd., to defendant's predecessor in title, and that the Association contracted, and promised to dedicate the road to the public as well as to grant full right-of-way over the same. Sir. T. 11. Wilford, with him Mr. Cracrol't Wilson; appeared for plaintiffs, and Mr. A. Gray, with him Mr.' Tringham, for the defendant. One of the Buyers i.n the Box. Mr. Wilford called Herbert Carter, I book-finisher in the Government Printing | Office, who stated that he was a partner with Body. The latter introduced him to Chapman at his (Body's) house in Hawker Street, where the section (the subject matter of the action) was discussed. Plans were exhibited, and these showed the front road to Hamilton (Hillside Road), the Telephone Road, and the Hukanui-Piako Read. In reply to a question, Chapman told Body that the Telephone Road was a dedicated road under the control of the Kirihiriroa Read Board. He also added that he could remember coaches running along the road to Cambridge. Chapman then went on to say that he would spend X'so on the road and put it in good order. Prior to that interview with Chapman, witness hail seen a number of vegetables (alleged by Chapman to have been grown on tho land) in Baker Bros.' window, Wellington. These vegetables, Chapman said, had'all been grown without tho use of any fertiliser. He also said that young stock could be put on the land right away, and would fatten on the grass and rushes. He remarked that the grass was mostly "fog," and that farmers in the Waikato thought a great deal of "fog," as when they fried to do away with it they found that their milk tests went down. He said the property had touched his pocket to the extent of ,£IO,OOO odd. As far as the drainage and grass wont, tho farm was what could bo termed an improved farm. All that was needed was to nut twu small tlrains along each side boundary. The Soil did not need a fertiliser. Before witness and Body Soft ■ Chapman, it was agreed that Body should go up and fee the land. After another interview a deposit of .£l5O was paid on■ the property, Some correspondence with Chapman's solicitor followed, and another meeting between -witness, Body, and Chapman was held, and conversation again.- turned on 1 • thc'roads, when Chapman made the statement'that .the Telephone fioad was n dedicated road, shown in t,h<* plans in the Land Transfer Office, Auckland. * "Were You Soft Enough fo Believe—" -Mr. Gray: Were you soft enough to believe that you could sow grass, on this country and turn out stock on it in six weeks?—" Yes." Witness added that ho had visited the land once. Mr. Gray: What did you think of it?— "Very ordinary." To further questions: He did not think at the time that he had made a bad bargain. He did not knoyr that 4ven now. But after listening to a witness at the previous hearing (Gordon) he would certainly be glad to get out of it. . . . Several others who had bought land under similar conditions to witness and Body were also taking legal action. They had all conferred before this action. Settler's Opinion of the Land, Frederick Richard Scddon, a settler in the Waikato, said that he had lived there nearly all his life. He hed been a member of the Kirikiriroa Road Board till two years ago. Up till the time he left tho board had not assumed control of tho Telephone Road. He would put no vaiue on Carter and Body's land. In his opinion it was worthless. Mr. Wilford: Would it be possible to grow grass on it?—"l don't think so. It is.very wet in the winter." Would it be possible to stock tho land after six or eight weeks?—" No." To further questions: Tho best grassseeder in New Zealand could not produce grass on Carter and Body's land. Ho would not spend any money draining tho land. On one occasion he purchased some c.atiie which had been running on Chapman's land. He admitted that they were in good condition, considering tho land that they had been running on. Another Man Who Wanted Land. Harry K. Eobertshaw, baker and grocer, Miramar, stated that he was introduced to Chapman by a land agent. He went to Chapman's house, where they talked about tho land. Chapman said that stock could be run on the land at present, feeding oil' the rushes. He added that anything would grow on tho land. In fact, in twelve weeks maize had grown Bft. 6in._ high. Chapman also said that 30 odd farmers had been up to look at tho land, and 30 odd had purchased. They had, he said, put in oats, and had counted 5G ears on a stalk. Ho also stated that potatoes of enormous size and other vegetables grew on the land. Witness and Chapman went up to Hamilton and inspected the block. Chapman said that the land never itlooded, and that it could all bo drained by a four, three, and two drain. After draining, he said, the land could bo ploughed in four weeks' time, and there was not a pin's point difference in the whole block. Asked to account for the difference in the price of the different portions of the block, Chapman said that some of the portions would cost more because of the proximity of the proposed creamery and school. Some weeks after this witness met Chapman in Wellington, paid a deposit, and took possession of a section. Detailing a conversation which he had had with Chapman about the" Telephone Boad witness remarked that Chapman said that, if he (witness) could prove that the road was not a public road, he could have hisblock for nothing. At this stage tho case was adjourned until this morning, when the cross-ex-amination of Robcrtshaw- will be com-' menced.