SUPREME COURT

Taranaki Daily News, Volume LIV, Issue 210, 11 March 1912, Page 7

SUPREME COURT

SATURDAY'S SITTINGS. CLAIM FOR SPECIFIC PERFORMANCE. Hearing was resumed at the Supreme Court on Saturday morning in the case in which Mr. C. Robison proceeded against Henry Sanson, jun., for specific performance of an agreement to exchange farm lands.- Mr. H. D. Bell, K.C., and with him Mr. Roy, appeared for plaintiff, and in the absence of Mr. C. P. Skerrett, K.C., the case for the defence was conducted by Mr. Spence. i The first witness called was E. R. C. Gilmour, land agent, who said that in the absence of any arrangements the commission was, in the case, 'of land agents, usually pooled and afterwards divided. The opinion he had formed of Sanson was that he was a keen and careful man of business. Mr. Spence: "It is a common practici for each side to bump up the values of the. respective properties so as to correspondingly increase the commission." Witness replied that that wa* experience. Mr. Spence: Do you think it your duty to tell your principal that you are pooling the commission? Witness: No. Evidence was then given by E. Griffiths as to a sample* of oats grown on j the island. He stated that for chaffing purposes it was a particularly nice line. He would not care to judge the land , altogether from the crop, however. To Mr. Spence: It was quite possible to have a very poor crop and yet obtain a good sample over a widespread area. Mr. Spence: You don't feel it your duty, to let the vendor know that the commission is being pooled? Witness: That is so. He added that by the pooling arrangement an agent would get more commission than if he got commission from only his own client.' John Kemp was at one time in his employ, and witness found him to be a man of the highest integrity. Wm. P. Nicoll, seed and grain merchant, also gave his opinion on the oats produced in court, stating that they were a good sample. Witness added that the knots 'of sheaves produced in court had been machine tied.

JSvidence on behalf of the plaintiff was also given by John Kemp, a farmer in the Bay of Plenty, who, is also interested iii Mercury Island. He testified to the fact that Sanson had been informed of the grassing clause in the mortgage prior to the sale.

Mr. Spence: Why did you not have your name on the title deeds of the island? •

Witness: Need I ansjver that question? ; His Honor: Yes.

Witness: Because if my name was on the title I could not have gone* in for a block of land from the Crown.

Mr. .Spence: Now, Mr. Kemp, as a man of honor, do you think that place is worth £3 10 per acre cash? Wititess: Yes! Mr. Spence: And will pay a man to work it?

Witness: If a man has sufficient « means to work it for three or four * years it will be >vorth another £1 per 8 acre by that time. , j<

Albert Kemp, who described himself as | a fanner, but formerly a land agent, | said that he was on his way to take I some ' prospective purchasers (Griffin I Bros.) over the island, when he met San- ; son, who told him he had arranged to purchase the land. Witness told Sanson that Griffin Bros, were very much disappointed as they wanted to buy the island themselves. In expressing himself well satisfied with the place, Sanson asked -him to keep Griffin Bros, out of Robison's way, because he was only making an exchange of properties, while they "were cash buyers and might be given " preference. Cross-examined by Mr. Spence, witness said that Robison was a relative of his.

The court then adjourned till 10 o'clock this morning.