FARM DISPUTE.

Hauraki Plains Gazette, Volume XXXVIII, Issue 5102, 18 March 1927, Page 4

FARM DISPUTE.

EVIDENCE FOB THE DEFENCE. magistrate RESERVES DECISION The case in which Martin Rohan, farmer, Waikino, proceeded against Thomas Watters, Waihi, and Thomas George Ayers, Waikino, claiming a total of £2OO damages for alleged breaches of covenants in the lease o'f a farm at Waikino, was continued at the local Magistrate’s Court on Wednesday, before Mr F. W, Platts, S.M. i Mr E. W, Porritt appeared for plain- ! tiff and Messrs E. J. Clendon and JI Clark for the defendants. In opening the case for the defence i Mr Clendon traversed the evidence 1 drawn by the prosecution. He pointed out that it had been admitted that when the defendants took over the | farm it was in a neglected condition, and that during the first .two years of defendant’ tenancy a marked improvement to the property had been made. Touching on the evidence of plaintiff, Mr Clendon contended that it was a tissue of generalities and unsatisfactory. Apart from the fac* that, the onus of proof rested with plaintiff, his evidence was unconvincing and his claim was a “fake-up” and unreliable. It was not so much a case of blackberry as it was. of blackmail. The evidence for the defence would show . that the whole of the covenants of the lease had been complied with, and a number of authorities were quoted in support. Thomas Chas. Watters, engineer, Waihi Gold Mining Co., said that he obtained a lease of the plaintiff’s farm in 1921. At that time there was about 3% acres o'f land cleared. When he left the farm in 1926 about 25 acres weife cleared, 20' acres of which had been ploughed and sown in grass. Various people had been employed during the tenancy. It had not been possible tp milk during the first season because there was no pasture. The stock on the far|m were starving and had to be sold. The dwellinghouse was renovated and repaired to the extent of £44 4's Bd. The other buildings were in a very dilapidated condition, some being almost beyond repair. The drains were not 'functioning, and it had been necessary to clean them, and construct a new right-angle drain, and construct bridges for stock over the larger drains. As a result of the improvement to the drains it had been possible tp plough an area which was formerly swamp. The total sum expended during the tenancy yas £733, excusive of any charge for the labour o'f defendants. The return from tne farm far the same period from all sources was £403 5s sd. The fences were old and in a bad condition, requiring the purchase of 100 posts, and about a dozen strainers. Outside of the items mentioned defendants had made substantial improvements, including a new 4-bail cowshed which cost about £75. There was no obligation on defendants to erect the. building but it was necessary for the efficient working of the farm. Plaintiff frequently visited the property, but had neve.': said he was dissatisfied with the defendants. Defendants arranged to sell to a man named Knowles, and approached plaintiff in regard to resuming his lease. Later , a transfer was drawn up in favour of Knowles, but. no suggestion was made

that defendants had not carried out, the covenants of the lease. Defendants left the property in February, 1926, and on February 8, 1927, a summons was received setting out .that the terms of the lease had not been complied with. The. property had certainly gone back during the last twelve months. To Mr Porritt delendant said that when taking over the property he and his partner were aware that the buildings were in a bad condition, and that a lot Qf work was required to make the farm profitable. It was a fact that all the drains had been cleaned during 1923-24-25, and the blackberries were also cleared fflom them. It was not until December 8, 1925, that the defendants received any intimation that the terms o'f the lease had not been complied with, and that an action would be instituted. Had Knowles complied with the terms of his lease, as had the defendants, the plaintiff would never have instituted proceedings. His Worship r|aised the point and showed that what plaintiff said was “it Knowles had done anything there would have been no, action.” To Mr Clendon defendant said that t.he cost of the transfer >f the lease to Knowles was over £25 . He had no right to go on the property once it was signed over to Kin wles. Mary J. Ayers, wife of one of the defendants, said that she was aware, of the terms of the .case and had lived on the property duripg the term of occupancy. She had kept diaries right through the years, they were on the farm, showing the work done each day and by whom, and any other matters that occurred on the property. The diaries (produced) were referred to contrii .i msly during the evidence of witness. She stated that the terms of the lease in every detail had been more than complied with, and plaintiff had never complained that he was not satisfied with the way the property was being farmed. To Mr Porritt witness said that she refused to answer whether or not Knowles had paid for the 22 head of cattle taken over, from defendants. Plaintiff went over the farm at regular intervals with defendants. Thomas G. Ayers, the other defendant, said that he had worked on the 'farm during the whole time of occupancy. A statement (produced) supplied details of the work done. He estimated that 25 acres o'f land had been cleared, and could corroborate the whole of the evidence given by his partner, Watters. The plaint,iff visited the property every two. months, but had never, made any complaints about the non-observance of the covenants, of the lease. On the contrary he frequently expressed his pleasure and satisfaction at the work that was being done. To Mr Porritt witness denied that plaintiff had ever mentioned that he required some security or assurance that the work would be carried cut. Mrs E. Watjters, wife of one o'f the defendants, stated that she had not lived on the farm, but had an intimate knowledge of t.he amount of work done. She, too, kept a number of diaries (produced), and added .that there had never, been any slackening i ff o'f t,he defendants’ efforts on the farm. Gerald Knowles stated that he had taken over the property from the defendants in February, 1926. The farm was in fair condition, and there were between 20 and 25 acres of land

brought in. It was evident that, a lot o'f work had been done. He took over 22 head of cattle in good condition, and also about five tons of hay. He detailed the negotiations leading up to the transfer of the lease from defendants. There was specific allegation by plaintiff as. to the amount of work not performed under the covenant of the lease. The defendant Watters had remarked to plaintiff that lie (defendant) thought witness would carry out the existing terms of the lease with regard to the amount of work to be done each year. Witness’ was p'f t;he opinion that defendants’ had complied with all .the condition* of the lease. To Mr Porritt witness said he would not have done the work pointed out on the plan if it had not wanted to be done. He denied that he had to get rid of a bull because there was not a fence in good enough repair to keep it in. To Mr Clendon witness said he understood that under his lease he could, clear, five acres a year on any part of the farm. The claim made by plaintiff was an absurd one, and unjustifiable. James Paterson, 'farmer, Waihi. said that he knew the failm in question since 1914, and detailed the improvements carried out by defend-. ants, who left it greatly improved. The drains were operating all right, but they appeared to be in the wrong places on the fafim. Ralph Johnstone, farmer, Karangahake, said that in August, 1921, ne had refused to consider taking over t,he 'farm because of the deplorable state it was in. Defendants had improved the farm beyond recognition. Mi- Clendon said lie still had five witnesses to call. The magistrate said he did not desire to hear any further evidence, and as it was .an involved claim he would reserve his decision until April 4.