SUPREME COURT.

Taranaki Daily News, 10 February 1919, Page 7

SUPREME COURT.

ALLEGED FRADULENT REPRESENTATION. ACTION FOR. £IOOO DAMAGES. (Before His Honor, Mr. Justice Chapman) The action Benton v. Cressey, for £IOOO damages for alleged false and fradulent representation in respect to the carrying capacity of a farm sold by defendant tp plaintiff, was continued oji Saturday before his Hqnor, Mr. Justice Chfpman. Mr. W. R. Haselden (Hawera) represented plaintiff and defendant was represented by Mr. C. B. Morrison, IC.C., Wellington, with him Mr. Powell (Hawera) . David Alexander Fraser McPherson, railway ganger, Whareroa, said in the 1910 season he dried off Mr. Cresse/s stock. He dried off 10 head and thery were 12 others besides those on the farm. To Mr. Haselden: He never had to graze them on the road. He believed Mr. Cressey kept all the stock on the farm the whole year rpund. He believed Mr. Beaton had 28 head of cattle on the farm now and they were there day and night. George McPherson, cheese factory hand, Pihama, stated that he had worked on Mr Cressey's farm from July 1909 to Apr ril, 1910. During that period they were milking 32 cows and there were also three or four horses and about 20 sheep on the place. They never grazed any stock anywhere else. They grew a few turnips and cut about five acres of hay. To Mr. Haselden: The cows were on the farm the whole season, and were never grazed on the roads. Edwin A. Harrison, managing butcher, Normanby, said he had been a farmer for many years and had lived in the Hawera district for about 20 years. He was a brother-m-law of Mr. Cressey, and knew the farm in question very well. To his knowledge in the worst part of the year there had never been less than 35 big stock on the farm (counting a horse as equal to two cows in the matter of grazing), not counting Bmall stuff such as sheep and young stock. To Mr. Haselden: On* one occasion he believed a few heifers had been sent to graze on turnips on another farm. The main stock were never taken off. Bernard McCarthy, solicitor, Hawera, said he acted in the estate of the late Mr. P. C. Cressey in the matter of the sale of the farm. The place was sold to Benton shortly before July 1 last. The sale had not been completed on account of Benton's complaint that the property had been misrepresented as capable of carrying 33 cows. He took it over about July 1 and had been in possession about six weeks when he came to witness' office and said that his experience was that the place would not carry more than 25 cows. He asked for compensation for the misrepresentation and suggested that instead of the £IOOO stated in the agreement he should be asked to pay Qnly £800; that payment of £2OO should be postponed ii'll the end of the first year, at the end of which, if he found he could carry 30 cows he would pay the price agreed upon. If not, he would expect a reduction. The conversation then turned upon the question of the amount of the reduction. Witness worked out the proportion as between 30 cows and 2,5 cows and calculated the price per acre at £62 10s if it carried only S& cowg. Benton said he would be satisfied if he got a reduction of £2 10s per acre. The offer was submitted to witness' clients, who rejected it, and Benton was informed of it. That was on August 21. On the day before that fitness met Benton in his motor car and asked him tc pay an instalment of £560 of the purchase money in order to allow Mrs Cressey to meet an obligation in connection with the purchase of a house property in town. He agreed, and paid the amount, making no protest then as to the alleged misrepresentation. Evidence \yas given by T. K. Thompson, land agent Hawera as to acting for the plaintiffs in regard to haying authority to sell the farm. John Cress.-, as recalled and stated that when the -. ock was taken off the farm Benton ~n taking possession brougnt on 34 rmv.s and three horses. Harrison Benton, recalled, repeated his previous evidence as to the quantity of stock brought on to the farm. He described the land about the homestead as good quality, l'he other was poor and had to be heavily manured. He manured 30 acres at a eost of £3 per acre, and put on a truck .if lime in addition; He did his intense farming on his land opposite (Surrey's farm) for use on the homestead farm, and had 19 acres under cultivation. That concluded the evidence, and counsel addressed the court. His Honor reserved his decision.