LAW REPORTS.

Dominion, Volume 5, Issue 1268, 25 October 1911, Page 3

LAW REPORTS.

e SUPREME COURT. TILE WAIKATO SWAMP CASE. In tho Supreme Court yesterday, Mr. Justice Chapman hoard argument ill what is known as "the Waikato S«:amp case." This was nil action brought by Herbert Carter anil James AY. _ Body against John W. Ohnpinuu, of Wellington, for rescission of an to purchase certain land in tiie A\aikato, and also, for recovery of the sum of JjoOT l(!s. !d.—(he amount paid out of pocket by Carter and Body, the plaintiffs. Mr. t. M. Wilford, with him Air. W. .i. Cracroft Wilson, appeared for plaintiffs, ami Mr. A. Gray, with him .Mr. C. W. 'l'ringham. for the defendant Chapman. The action first came before Hie Court on March S last and extended over several days. It was founded lipon throe alleged misrepresentations. Under an agreement, dated February 11, 1910, defendant sold to plaintiffs certain land in the Waikato, and the land was afterwards, bv virtue of the agreement, taken possession of by the plaintiffs, ami occupied by tlieni. The first cause of action alleged fraud. It was that mis-statements were knowingly made. The seccnd cause of action omitted fraud, and relied upon the contention that the misrepresentation of something material entitled plaintiffs to rescission of the agreement. The first alleged misrepresentation was that defendant stated that the property fronted a public dedicated road, known as Telephone Road; tiie second was that the defendant, before inducing the purchase, represented to the plaintiffs that the land was of such quality that if the ti-trca which covered it was burned off, grass would come up in three weeks, and cattle could be put on within six weeks; the third was that ho •leelarcd that the laud was not subject ta flood in winter or at any time. In connection with the first point, tho defence admitted the representation, except with regard to the word "dedicated." At tho conclusion of the evidence, the case was adjourned sine die for Hie hearing of counsel's arguments. the hearing was resumed yesterday Mr. Gray, in a lengthy address, reviewed the evidence, contending that in is represent at ion had not been proved. . , , , ~ Mr. Wilford had not concluded his address at 5.10 p.m., when the Court adjourned until 11 o'clock this morning.