LAW REPORTS.

Dominion, Volume 4, Issue 1094, 5 April 1911, Page 8

SUPREME COURT. LIVELY STAGE OF WAIKATO CASE. SELLER UNDER FIRE. A BOMBARDMENT OF QUESTIONS. What: has become known as the Waikato land case entered upon its sixth day of heating in the Supreme Court yesterday before Mr. Justice Chapman. . The plaintiffs, Herbert Carter and James W. Body, of Wellington, sought the rescission of an agreement with John \V. Chapman, dated February 11, 1010, under which plaintiffs covenanted to purchase portion of the Hillside Woodlands Estate, near Hamilton. Plaintilfs also claimed .£507 16s. 4d., representing the deposit paid on the land, and the amount paid out of pocket. Mr. T. M. Wilford, with him Mr. Cracroft Wilson, appeared for plaintiffs, and Mr. A. Gray, with him Mr. Tringham, for defendant. On resuming, John W. Chapman was cross-examined by Mr. Wilford. Witness was understood to say that, before becoming a fanner, he had worked in a tannery. Were you interested in tannery or fellmongery works at Ngahauranga or Johnscnville?—"No. The Chapman interested was a brother of mine." Your brother's place was burned down three times?—"No, twice." Witness added that he had received no part of the insurance money. He had no recollection cf any part of the insurance money being paid to him by Izard and Weston, solicitors. If they did pay it was not to him personally, but on account of his brother. Did you ever go bankrupt?—"No, or any of my family that I know of." Did that Interview Happsn? "You have taken your oath that Cartor and Body did not coll at your house in Hawker Street and hold a conversation with you on the evening of January 27, ,1910?—" Yes, it is true that thev did not." * You solemnly swear that thev did not come to your.house on that date?—"l solemnly swear." • Counsel proceeded to cross-examine witness at length on the alleged interview. ■J, as =ertcd that be'had never met either Carter or. Body at his house on tho night of January 27. He had not met them there in January at all, but an interview had taken place on February 9. Mr. Wilford: That is a solemn oath on which you are prepared to let the ca»e stand or fall?--Yes.".

"If .Air. Leighton, land agent, produces a diary showing that it was arranged in his office that Carter ar.d Bcdv were to go' to your house to discus Wnfkulo land, will you still say that thev were wrong?" Witness replied that appointments were often made by land agents for people like this, but it did not follow that thev were Mr. Wilford read the following copv of the entry referred to, made by one of Mr. 1/eightons clerks :-"Friday, Jan. 23, 1910. Body re Waikato land. .Interviewed Mr Uiapman. Also arranged to meet him with his friend Carter at house this evening. eo M tn rtfi " This 'V n a PP°intnient to go to the house on January £8. Tlvi? , £ ""- t, .! ls) SB ' ore (hat jt was JamiMr. Wilford: "That-'is so." Wore There Tears and a "Scene." Witness denied having burst into (ears on the occasion of an interview at Carter's house at Kelburne, over the Waikato lands trouble. . Mr. Wilford: "Bid not Mrs. Carter come into the room with a cup of tea when you were blubbering, antl remonstrate with .Mr. Carter, saying that it was a shame to make you crvf" Witness replfcd that'he had no recollection ot having seen Mrs. Carter. He had certainly never cried on the occasion mentioned. It was all a fabrication. Mr 'Wilford: "Is it a fact that you told Carter, Body, and others, that, if they sowed grass on the swamp it would ba up in three weeks, and that cattle, could be run on it in six weeks" Witness: "1 fay, No! Distinctly No!" ion knew that they were not farmers. You knew that you had an engineer, a bookbinder, and a baker to deal with? Now, did you not tell them these things? —"It is contrary to fact, and contrary" to my methods in regard to the Waikato lands." Then-the things which these witnesses say are inventions by these men?—" Absolutely." Did you (ell Body and Harman that all that was required on the land was a 1 x .1 x 2 drain?—"No, I did not. If you make out that I said that one drain was sufficient, I say, No."

A Series ot Denials. AA'itncss denied having told three of the witnesses that he was going to put up a creamcTy opposite his property.' What he did say was ithat AVhitmore Brothers had offered land for the purpose, and that the New Zealand Dairy Association was going to put up a creamery as soon as there was a milk supply from 200 cows. Mr. Wilford: "I put it to you that, you have made that up out of your glib mind after thinking it out." Witness replied that it was nothing of the sort. The witnesses may have misunderstood him. He also denied that he had ever said that he had seen eoacliM running over the Telephone Road. The exhibition of AYnilmto root crops in Baker Brothers' window, AVcllington, was no fatso representation to the public. The exhibition was to show what could bo grown in the AVaikato swamp lands, but it did not purport to show that tho crops had been grown on the land whirh witness was selling. Each sample was labelled, showing where it came from. Mr. AVilford: We all know what can be, grown in the best parts of tho AVaikato. All the contest here is that you sold to these men an absolutely worthless piece of land. Did you tell anybody thai, maize would grow Sft. Gin. high in six weeks on the property which you had sold to Carter and Body?—" Certainly not. I had never tested their land. It is a fact, however, as regards lands that have been tested." Did you tell these prospective purchasers that fertilisers were not required?— "Xo, I did not. 1 know too much about tho AVaikato land to make any such extravagant statements as were attributed to me." Did you tell Body and Harman that the Telephone Road was under the control of the Kirikiriroa Road Board?—" Yes." Witness added that he thought at the time that it was.

Have You Ever-Farmed an Inch? Rave you ever dug a drain in your life, an.'l have you ever fanned an inch of Waikato land? Are you not a land dealer?—"l have paid for having the work done, although. I've not done it mvse!f." Will you set your opinion against that of Mr. 'gcdclon, who said that Carter and Body's land was worthless, could not grow anvthing. and that nothing could bring it info use?—"l say that Mr. Seddon is wrong when he states that, and that the results we have had after putting the plough into the swamps proves Inn, wi'ong." Counsel proceeded io rjuoto the opinion given l)v a Mr. Gordon as to the value of the lands. "Mr. Gordon," said witness, "was practically unknown as ono of the 'upper ton' in '.tie Waikato. He was not taken seriouslv." Mr. Wilford: Aren't all these settlers about your swamps called "Chapman's working bullocks?" I have it that it is so, in n letter from one of your settlers. Is it not a fact that the whole Waikato is astounded at the ease with which you got these people on the. property? Witness: You are the first I've heard suggest it. Mr. Wilford: Will you say that you have never heard these, engineers, linkers, bookbinders, etc., called '"Chapman's working bullocks?"—"! have never heard it."

Valuable Gifl Lands Replying to a quotation by Mr. Wilford from Mr. Seddon's evidence Io Ihe effect that Ihe best grass planter in New Zenland could not grow grass seed on Carter and Body's land and could not drain it, witness said that this was only Mr. Seddon'a opinion. Many of the swamp

lands in the Waikato which had been given away in the past were now the liigho.-l priced lands in the district. He knew of one area of 2Sofl acre* which was originally given away by a land company, and which would now fetch 4;2fi,5011. In answer to a further question witness said that lltr-ie would itot.be grass on Carter and Body's land for 50 years unless the land was ploughed and sown. • Mr. Wilfcrd (addressing witness) then said: Tu sum up the matter, you say tl\e whole of the evidence of Carter and Body, Harman, Rcbertsliaw, and another witness, about you having saiil certain things about drainage, grass being sown, and stock being able to be run on it in six weeks is incorrect.—"Yes." Mr. Wilford'. If you had said that you could burn the ti-tree, sow .grass, i,mi have it up in three weeks, and stock on it in six weeks, that would be a misrepresentation.'•—'Tor- feeding' purposes—it would." Mr. Wilford: If you made such a misstatement, it was iv misrepresentation?— "That is so." As to the statement made by Body and Harman that, when you were by the willow tree, you said that there was not a pin's point of difference between the whole of the land?—"l absolutely deny sneh a statement. That is another concoction." When the witnesses said that you stated that no fertiliser was needed it was not true?—" That is so." It might help you to sell the land, and so might the statement that the grass could be stocked in six weeks.—"Yes, if I had made the statements, which I deny." At this stage Mr. E. Leigbton, land agent, was asked to produce the diary containing the entry made by his clerk as to the arrangement made for Body and' Carter to call at Chapman's house in Hawker Street at the end of January. The entry was for the parties to meet ou the evening of January 28. He did not think it possible that a mistake could have been made in entering the date. ■' The case was unfinished when the Court rose until 10.30 this morning.