DISPUTE OVER FARM

Sun (Auckland), Volume II, Issue 452, 6 September 1928, Page 13

DISPUTE OVER FARM

WOMAN SUES LAND AGENT

Alleging misrepresentation in respect of the sale of a farm at Waimauku. Esther Plamilton, married woman, petitioned Mr. Justice Reed in the Supreme Court this morning for recision of an agreement .with James Hodgson Finlay, land agent, Auckland, and claimed £IOO general damages, besides refund of £3OO deposit and £26 legal expenses. For plaintiff, Mr. W. H. Cocker said Mrs. Hamilton agreed to buy the farm of 50 acres from defendant at £I,SOO in November, 1927. In course of negotiations Finlay was alleged to have represented that the property was a going concern, carrying 20 milking cows, and that it would carry, if farmed, 30 cows during the following year. Defendant originally asked £2,300, but Mrs. Hamilton would not give more than £I,BOO. She paid £3OO deposit. “After the purchaser had been on the farm for a short while the cows began to fade, as there was not sufficient pasture,” said counsel. “By the beginning of this year she was starved out.”

Mr. Cocker said it was subsequently learned that the 20 cows liad been hand-fed for some three months with hay bought from outside the farm. The actual capacity of the place was between eight and 10 cows. A letter to Finlay brought no reply. Later communications through solicitors . produced unsatisfactory answers. Plaintiff then repudiated and refused to complete the agreement. In evidence plaintiff said she had been dairy farming all her life. Milk cheques from the disputed property had just met expenses. To Mr. Armstead, for defendant, witness admitted she had relied solely on her own judgment in inspecting the farm. She did not remember telling defendant that some of her people had looked at the property and were thoroughly satisfied. One friend who had made a preliminary investigation reported favourably to her. Witness admitted she got all she expected from the farm as a going concern. She denied that last summer’s drought had much to do with the poor carrying capacity of the property. Three farmers, neighbours of plaintiff. gave evidence that the present capacity of the farm was between eight alid 15 cows. It would never carry more than 20. The value of the farm would be about £I,OOO at most. (Proceeding.)