FLOODED FARM

Sun (Auckland), Volume III, Issue 636, 12 April 1929, Page 11

FLOODED FARM

WOMAN CLAIMS DAMAGES Alleging fraudulent misrepresentation over the sale of a farm at Clevedon, Emily Miriam Chesnut, a married woman (Mr. West), claimed £BOO damages in the Supreme Court this morning from the vendors of the property, William Peter Seaton and Alice Winifred Seaton (Mr. Haig'h). As, however, the latter had not been served the plaintiff proceeded against the one alone. ‘‘This is a type of action which some years ago was common, but now, fortunately, has become rarer,” remarked Mr. West, in presenting plaintiffs case. The woman had been farming, with her husband, at Te Kuiti. Having a child of school age_ plaintiff desired to come to Auckland. The farm in dispute, a property of 33 acres, with a house, was bought in October, 1927, through one Tyldcn, a sub-agent of the Loan and Mercantile Company, Ltd. During the winter of 1928, a very wet season, a large portion of the property was seriously flooded by a creek bounding the farm. “Nothing was said by Seaton of the past or likely flooding,” said counsel, “but plaintiff’s husband was shown a piece of wet ground of an acre or two. Subsequently, it has been found that the farm is practically a pondingarea, and takes water from 10,000 acres of surrounding country.” Seaton had also said, continued counsel, that the carrying capacity of the place was 30 cows for 10 months of the year. Although at the time of the sale there were only 17 cattle on the place, Seaton said it had in fact carried the large number he stated and for that time. Plaintiff paid £2,900 for the property. Of this, £1,400 was raised by a State Advance mortgage, £SOO was paid as a cash deposit, and the vendors accepted a second mortgage of £I,OOO. The defence was a denial of misrepresentation. The defence also stated that plaintiff bought the property on the judgment of her husband, as agent. Mr. West said that after plaintiff had taken possession defendant wrote to say he had a successful method of feeding ducks which he would give plaintiff if desired, because ducks kept for eggs were often more profitable than cows. "Defendant may have had his tongue in his cheek when he wrote that,” observed counsel, amid laughter. In evidence James Nathaniel Chestnut. husband of plaintiff and her agent, said he did not doubt the integrity of Tylden. but witness certainly had been led to believe by defendant that the place did not flood. Explaining why there were only 16 cattle on the farm defendant said he could not run more because his wife was not always at home to assist. Witness found the actual capacity to be 17 cows. Cross-examined, witness denied that Seaton had told him that the creek flowed over at the bend. (Proceeding.)