THE EVIDENCE.

Mataura Ensign, Volume 7, Issue 365, 13 June 1884, Page 3

THE EVIDENCE.

The suit/ was Commenced at-Melboiirne ,p.n +!,„ QQth ult.n TJj^ddp.a and Mrs Higgins STJSsW'tS plaintiff ; and Mr Webb and Mr Purves for the ; wrf^tn\ d p^&tilF/;#p4g;e;..lieredith BellViStated '» 4MFii&vrfa 'a : sneepfarmer;m SputWar^d^ew , :.? '5551 ind l "'''^e owned' ,'the /.'.estoter kn 9 wn as. 1 Plknsbpth of vUch were mortgaged to the defendant, who Iwned^BrPm^^^W^jSoth plaintiff SdfefelSfiada^wmiUSon their prej2ses,asweUasihe appliances, and grow-

ng crops'. Messrs Larnach and Driver also owned property adjoining, and the Messrs M!Neill owned a station in the neighborhood. The plaintiff, Driver, and Larnach. had .mortgaged. their property to the defendant. It was arranged amongst the different parties that they should dispose of the whole of the land to a company, to be floated in England. Messrs Connell and Hoodie were appointed valuators, and they made a valuation on the 31st May,lß7^,aad the several parties executed a deed on the Bth June 1878. After the execution 1 of the' deed kir Julius' Yogel and Mr Murray were appointed attorneys to go to London in. order to float the Company. A subsequent deed was made appointing Sir Jul;ius- Yogel and Mr Larnach, who carried the business through. It was provided by a preliminary agreemen tthat the plaintiff and defendant should be allowed L3OOO each for their sawmills, %nd the piice of ths land, with t'be exception of .M'Neili's, was fixed at L 5 per acre, but this latter provision was varied by a later deed. That agreement was signed by the plaintiff in the Southland .Club,,lriverc;u-<jUi. Plaintiff asked Driver. who.seemedto.be representing the defendant, whether the agreement would make any diffe-ence in the price to be paid for the growing corn or the sawmills, to whish question Driver replied "No." Plaintiff had a conversation wi th Driver after the mortgages were extended by the Company. Larnach at the time was still in England, but the defendant was in Victoria. Plaintiff told Driver that the amount of surplus from the Ardlussa. estate was to be applied to the payment of the sawmills and the growing crops, as -originally agreed upon. Driver said it was all right. Plaintiff also told Driver that the amount which he had to receive out of tlie Ardlussa estfile was LIO,SOO. Driver assented to this, and there was no dispute ' between them, Before 1878 the '.stations were infested with rabhiiPj aud m the beginning oii 187'J the plaintiff employed men on the river' bunk of the Mataura digging up their burrows and • exterminstirg the rabbits, He also, erected wire netting in order •■ to keep his neighbors' rabbits from coming on his .property.; The Mataura" River was rabbit proof, and very few rabbits could cross the Wai,rnea River. :The plaintiff kept his wire netting in thorough repair, and cleared the rabbits from his ' property. Wantwood, one of the defendant's stations, was overrun with rabbits in "1878, and it would not, on that account, keep half the stock mentioned in the agreement. The plaintiff was determined to keep hia property clear of rabbits, and he told MVCaughan, who also represented the defendant, that unless they did the same he would withdraw from the agreement, M'Cuughan undertook to take steps with the vi«.\ 10 preventing, the incursions of rabbits, and that he had bought several miles of wire netting, and its fixing was going on all right. On the faith of these representations the plaintiff went on with the. agreement; and afterwards found that the other vendors tad not cleared their property of rabbits. .Plaintiff aaw defendant in London, and informed him of the agreement which he had .made;with' M'Caughan, and of the breach by the;latter. The defendant said he did not know that there were any rabbits at his "Wantwood station. Plaintiff then told him that the. Company, had been • compelled to take steps to extirpate the rabbits. At this stage the suit was adjourned.