BUYING A FARM.

Manawatu Herald, Volume XLIV, Issue 2434, 27 May 1922, Page 3

BUYING A FARM.

THE NEW OWNER NOT SATIS-

FIED. A claim for the recovery of £4,000 under one cause of action, or £l7, 458 under an alternative cause, was made by Jacob Henry Lory, farmer, Oliau, against Fredrick Spencer Easton, flaxiniller, of Levin, in regard to the purchase of farm lands was made at the Supreme Court, Wellington, on Thursday before Mr Justice Salmond.

Sir John Findlay, K.C., and with him Mr C. A. Loughnan, appeared for the plaintiff, ’and Messrs M. Myers and W. S. Park for the defendant.

Plaintiff! alleged that in September of 1920, he entered into an agreement with the defendant to purchase 1.454 acres of land on »the coast near Ohau at a-price of £2O, paying £3,000 on account.. He had been given to understand he said, that the homestead section would carry 100 daily cows and 1,200 sheep, and that the property during the two previous seasons had earned 3,300 yvves, 1,000 dry sheep, and 550 to 000 cows and heifers. Plaintiff took over, the land in October, and farmed it until the end of 1921, when, he -alleged, he ascertained that the representations as to the carrying capacity of the land were untrue. He asked that the. contract for the sale and purchase should be rescinded, and sought the recovery of £4,000, costs, etc. As .an alternative cause of ■ action the plaintiff maintained that the .true value of the land was £8 per acre, and he sought to recover £17,458 10s, the difference be-tween-the value of the land at £2O and £8 per acre. The defendant, in reply, maintained that, actually the area of the land was 1,856 acres, including 82 acres leasehold. The statement of carrying Capacity, to which plaintiff objected, said defendant, referred to the whole of the lands shown on a plan discussed by the parties, and not merely to lots three and four, the subject of the action. It was not intended that the statement of carrying capacity was to be applied to the land sold, but it was a fair estimate of the capacity of the whole of the lands, and, said defendant, the plaintiff was made aware of the full facts. Further, the defendant said that the plaintiff had waived his right to a recission of the contract by his delays, etc., and contended that it would be impossible to restore the parties to their original positions on account of depreciation of land through the neglect of drains, fences, and the consequent drift of sand over the land. In conclusion, defendant held that the plaintiff had agreed to purchase the land ds a result of his personal inspection and not as a result. of any representation made to him.

Plaintiff gave evidence as to having inspected the property in the company of defendant’s agents, and detailed the then appearance of the property and < -stock; Since purchasing, lie said, lie had discovered that the carrying capacity of the block was not as represented. Evidence was given hv Oscar Monrad (land valuer) concerning the present carrying capacity of the land; also by Phillip Samuel Lureombe.

Further evidence for plaintiff was heard to-day. ‘ (Proceeding).