A SHANNON FARM.

Shannon News, 1 June 1928, Page 4

A SHANNON FARM.

QUESTION OF CARRYING

CAPACITY.

SUPREME COURT ACTION. Alleging that the property which he had purchased from defendant, John Cameron, farmer of Levin, was misrepresented, Robert Lloyd Martin, farnier, of Shannon, (Mr 11. R. Cooper) sought in the Palmerston North Siipreme Court to secure a rescission of the contract between the parties together with £SOO damages. An alternative claim was for £2OOO damages. In his statement of claim, plaintiff set out that he bought the farm of 98 acres from defendant at £35 per acre in June 1927, the purchase money bding payable by a cash deposit of £3OO and the balance of £3142/5/-, was secured by mortgage for a period of seven years. In order to induce plaintiff to buy the farm defendant had represented that the place would carry 30 cows all the year round and do them well; that since the previous November, it had carried 53 cows grazed each day on the >property; that the creek running through the land) had never been known to overflow. Defendant had known that plaintiff had purchased the farm for dairying purposes. Plaintiff said he had since discovered that what defendant had alleged was untrue. Defendant, in a statement, admitted that ,he represented that the property would carry 30 cows all the year rouhd and such was a fact. As. regards thn suggestion that 53 cows had been grazed each day, and the creek did not overflow, if such representations were made (which was denied) then they were not made with intent to in duce plaintiff to enter into" the purchase of the land. Mr A. M. Ongley with Mr C. Blenkhorn (Levin) counselled defendant. PLAINTIFF’S STORY. Plaintiff, from the witness box, said that when he 4 first inspected the Shannon property in June last, there was d good growth of grass. He noticed the creek running through the farm and made a point of asking if it ever flood ed. The reply was that it was nevei too high to prevent the cows frorfi crossing. Witness said lie was also told 53 cows had been grazed on the place in the day time since the previous November. , Plaintiff also detailed the expenses which he had been put to in order to get on to the farm, such as removal of furniture, etc. He took possession on June 20 and placed oh the farm 29 cows, four heifers coming in and seven calves. In November, however, he cut the herd down to 25. Plaintiff produced his returns from the Shannon factory which up to the end of April were 4676.3 lbs of fat valued at £352/4/7. His Honour: It looks as if the drought affected your returns. Plaintiff: It was not as bad as in other places. Continuing in answer to counsel, plaintiff said that in November thd creek overflowed and affected 12 acres He could not get the cows across. This state of affairs recurred throughout the season. On another occasion the flood waters washed out his mangels and potatoes on to the road. Witness saw defendant about the matter and the latter offered to meet him som£ way or another. However, nothing definite was agreed upon. Plaintiff said he also wrote to defendant about the; carrying capacity of the farm and after an inspection, defendant said lie could see it would not carry more than 20 cows. Defendant then advised witness to cut his cows down to 20 and agreed to cut the interest in half for that quarter. There were several subsequent interviews at which nothing was, agreed upon. To Mr Ongley plaintiff stated that he was obliged to put a horse and pony on the road side in order to provide them with feed. On May Ist last; he had on the place 25 milking cows,one cov with calf, seven heifers, 2 calves, horses and bull. Counsel: Do yoh think that 1 is the equal of 30 cows? Witness: It is not the equal. When a place is represented at 30 cows one expects to carry 30 cows with the other aninials as extras. IN CORROBORATION. Charles Henry Whitehead, land agent; of Palmerston North, stated that he took plaintiff to see the farm. Cameron was there too and 'the latter stated that occasionally the creek became' high and flooded at the lower end of the property, but he had had no difli- ; culty in getting stock across. There was a good growth of grass and there was not the slightest doubt that thefarm had been understocked. To Mr Ongley witness said he remembered it being mentioned that the place would carry 30 cows had with manuring and judicious farming, probably 35. Frederick Wm. Hubbard, land agent, ! who accompanied the previous witness; to the Shannon farm recalled defend- ■ ant having stated that the creek flood-? ed to a certain extent. He could not; recollect defendant having mentionedthe carrying capacity of the farm. The: grass was very long all over the pro-' perty. .

Mr Ongley.'i. Didn’t Cameron tell Martin not to put more than 30 cows on the place?—Yes. Mr Cooper: But you would expect to have extras such as horses?—Yes. To his Honour witness said his impression of the place was that it would carry 30 cows nicely. WOULD CARRY 20 COWS.

John George Williams, farmer, of Tokomaru, who had farmed the property concerned in the action, for three years from August 1920, said he had had to walk-out. In the first place he took 40 cows on but defendant advised 35. However, he lost four and carried on with 36 but had had to take them off the place during the winter. For the second season he started out with 35 but lost 6. That left him with 29 which he wintered on the farm. The third Season finished up with 27 cows which did very badly. He walked off

with 26 eows and 10/- in his pockets; lie had gone in with about £IOOO. In his opinion the carrying capacity of the farm at the present time was 20 cows with bull, horses, etc. On three occasions he couldn’t get his cows across the creek until the waters subsided. The grass was always late in coming away and the pastures appeared to be run out.

Thomas Frank Jamieson, farmer, of Shannon, whose property adjoins plaintiff’s, estimated the carrying capacity of 1 the farm between 18 and 20 cows all the year round. Douglas Caldwell, farmer, of Pohangina, also estimated the carrying capacity of the farm at 18 to 20 cows. The land apparently would not grow grass.

Bertie McEvven Galloway, farmer, of Shannon, stated that his brother, now deceased, had a lease of the property about 20 years ago. His brother had carried 25 to 27 cows, but could not make a do of things. Witness’ opinion was that the place had deteriorated since, and could carry now but 18 to 20 cows.

In cross examination, witness admitted that his brother was a sick man and perhaps unfit to farm * the place properly. Arthur Albert Kibble, of Shannon; estimated the carrying capacity at about 20 cows. He had known the creek to flood.

George Henry Hill, farmer, of Ohakea, deposed to buying the property the subject of the action, in May, 1926, at £4O per acre. His deposit was £7OO. After six months he had te quit the place as it was a financial failure. The reason given was that the grass would not come away in the spring. Besides grazing his stock on the road, he had to buy fodder. Floods had troubled him. ' The carrying capacity in his estimation was 18 to 20 eows.

To Mr Ongley witness admitted that he had as much as. 51 head of stock depasturing during the winter months. At his request valuers had inspected the farm and judged the capacity as about 25 cows. He had taken no action as he had no money left. James Richardson, farmer, of Shanon, gave evidence which supported the estimates of previous witnesses. THE DEFENCE. In opening for the defendant, Mr Ongley stated that with regard to the allegation as to the carrying capa«ity the history of the property which defendant would detail would make it clear that his statement that 30 cows could be carried was his honest opinion,,and in no manner fraudulent. At this point, ’ His Honour intervened and said that from, the evidence given, the first allegation was the only one that concerned him, as the other two had not been substantiated in the ease put before him. Mr Cooper accepted this ruling. John Cameron, defendant, testified to talcing up the property, then virgin bush in 1893. He cleared the place and farmed it till 1906, carrying sheep mostly. He leased the property to Galloway, regaining possession in 1911. Till 1916 he ran 27 eows besides 50 sheep—wheq owing to an accident he had to lease the property once more. In June, 1924, he entered into an agreement with F. Webb to milk cows on the property on a fifty-fifty basis, he supplying the land and Webb the cows. This arrangement held till July, 1925. During this period there were never less than 30 cows on the place. Mr Webb was a good farmer, but suffered ill-health. In cross-examination witness gave details of the stock wintered on the property over a number of years. He had never told plaintiff that he should reduce Ms stock. With regard to capacity, lie disagreed with plaintiff’s witnesses. The place would do it if it were properly farmed. Florence Nora Webb, wife of Franklyn Webb, retired farmer, of Morrinsville, told the Court that she and her husband were sharemilking for defendant for 13 months on the place now in dispute. While on the property they carried 33 cows—which wintered well. There were also four yearlings. During their stay on the farm her husband was ill most of the time. >

To Mr Cooper: They left the place on account of her husband’s health. Their cows went on to the place in good condition and came off fairly well. They milked more than they should have. The spring grass was a little late. If they had stayed a further twelve months the place would have carried . the stock though they would have had to buy hay.

VERDICT FOR DEFENDANT,

His Honour, after ' hearing Mrs Webb, stated that he would not require any further evidence; It was clear that Cameron was honest in his opinion. He accordingly would enter judgment for the defendant with costs according to scale and witnesses’ expenses.