AN EXCHANGE DEAL.

Putaruru Press, Volume II, Issue 23, 20 March 1924, Page 3

AN EXCHANGE DEAL.

FARM NEAR PUTARURU. An action concerning a contract in reference to an agreement |to exchange certain Auckland property for a farm between Putaruru and Lichfield was heard at the Auckland Supreme Court on Friday, when Michael Riordan proceeded against Annie Leatherbarrow, seeking an order for specific performance, or, alter an tively, £l5O special damages for loss of time and profit, agent’s commission and charges and legal expenses, £5Ol general damages for breach of agreement, and costs incidental to the action. Mr. Prendergast and Mr. Sullivan appeared for the plaintiff, and Mr. Sellar for the defendant. There was ia counter claim for £4O special and £SO general damages for alleged j n i srepre s en tati on. The case for the plaintiff was that defendant agreed to exchange for a farm of 111 acres at Putaruru (subject to two mortgages of £lO7l 14s Gd and £536), properties in Ingram road, Kemuera (subject to mortgages of £850), and that she had refused to carry out the contract. The defence was that plaintiff was ! told the contract would not be completed unless certain financial arrangements had been made, that the plaintiff had falsely represented that there was a Government valuation of £3OOO concerning the farm, that defendant had not revealed the fact that it was a bad farm, and finally, that the title of the land was not perfect. Plaintiff, in evidence, said he had paid £lB an acre for the farm, and he denied having told defendant that he had paid £23 an acre for it. He admitted saying that the farm was a good farm, and he still said so. Mr. Leatherbarrow had written repudiating the agreement to exchange, but after that he had taken a prospective buyer over the farm. At no time had he stated that the Government valuation of the farm was £3OOO. He did not know Mrs. Leatherbarrow would have to make financial arrangements before she could work the farm. She had told him she was worth £SOOO. The husband of defendant, William Leatherbarrow, who had conducted negotiations for the exchange, said he had been told that the valuation of the farm was £3OOO, and “ he took that to be the Government valuation.” Tn giving judgment for plaintiff, his Honour said that Leatherbarrow had, according to the evidence, got the Government valuation before the contract was signed. There would be judgment for the plaintiff and the issue of a writ for specific performance, costs to be fixed as in an action for £6OO.