DISPUTED AGREEMENT.

Taranaki Daily News, 18 September 1920, Page 8

DISPUTED AGREEMENT.

THBE SALE OF A FARM. CLA.J&I IN COURT FOR £5600. Aft ftgrecrnnt for sale and purchase of a Hawera dairy farm was the basis of proceedings at the Supreme Court, New Plymouth, yesterday, in which the vendor sought to recover damages against the prospective purchaser for failure to complete the arrangement. The plaintiff was Jesiie A. Bartlett, vof Hawera, who claimed from the defendants, T. F. Graham, of Te Kiri, and John H. Graham, of Waitara, £ 100 damages sustained through defendant not having performed the agreement to purchase the plaintiff's property of 162 acres; and asked for £5600 damages for the non-performance of the agreement, if, for any reason, it could not be performed. The defence alleged misrepresentation and that plaintiff committed a breach of certain paragraphs of the agreement. A counter-claim was made for the recision of the agreement, and for a refund of the deposit of £2OO in connection with the sale. If the Court held that the plaintiff was entitled to the performance of the agreement, the defendants asked for compensation in the sum of £ISOO. Plaintiff was represnted by Mr. Hutehen (New Plymouth), and Mr. F. C. Spratt (Hawera) appeared for defendants. In view of the nature of the dispute, and a counter-claim being involved, the case was opened by counsel for defendants. DEFENCE TAKEN FIRST. Mr. Spratt said the defence was that the refusal to perform the agreement was justified, and denied that plaintiff had carried out all her obligations. Counsel said that defendants alleged misrepresentations in regard to the carrying capacity, and he thought that if they could provo these were made either by Mrs. Bartlett or by her agents, and that they were false, the defendants were entitled to a recision of the agreement. Graham Bros, were carrying on farming in partnership. One resided at Te Kiri and the other lived at Waitara; both were bona fide farmers and not speculators. When F. F. Graham decided to go to the better land at Hawera, a land agent, G. H. Buckeridge, was approached, and mentioned Mrs. Bartlett s property. He gave to them the particulars which he had received from the vendor and taken down from Mrs. Bartlett's dictation. These were to the effect that the property was carrying 70 cows, 10 heifers, 3 bulls, 18 calves, and 3 horses, and wintered 130 head. There was a definite meaning attached to the term "wintered," said Mr. Spratt. It implied that a farm would be able lo afford the rUock not a bare subsistence, leaving them in poor condition, but ! would carry them through the winter in a slate ready for the work of the next season. On the strength of the representations made the Grahams went to inspect the farm: it was quoted at £lO5 per acre, and they decided to buv at that price, paying a deposit of £2OO. it might be urged that the inspection should have shown whether the farm would or would not have wintered the stipulated number of cattle, but there were the considerations that the buyers lived in totally different districts from Hawera, and the evidence of farmers went to show that a man from outside \v;i.- not able to judge with certainty the carrying capacity. Some farmer's j had gone into the property believing it could carry a certain number of cows, and found to their cost that it could not. The property could not possibly carry the amount of stock stated. During the negotiations Graham did not at nil.:' time come into contact with Mrs. Bartlett; they were shown over the farm by an agent and by one of her sons. At the time of the inspection there was an urea of about five acres in turnips, and the agreement provided that the purchasers were to have the crop. When T. F. Graham went to see the farm in June, prior to taking over 'far the season, lie found the crops were not preserved as agreed, and there was no winter feed. The farm was also grazed out. There were 101 stock "at ihe date of purchase (February), and the agreement then was that no additional cattle were to be put on. But t'i.'c conditions in June led to the belief (hn» either more stock had beerrput on, or else tin? place had never wintered 130 cattle and could not do so. There was a particularly good autumn. Graham decided not in risk going on to a farm in siHi n bare 1 condition, and refused to complete the agreement. As it turned out, the Infer part of the season was particularly severe, there being: Ifi successive fronts, which was a'record j for twenty year? aft far as severity was concerned. RISE IX LAND PRICES. Concluding, Mr. Spratt said it looked as if th« plaint iff hud decided to take the last blade of grass out of the farm, and that there had been an almost wilful di.-regard of the rights of the incoming man. Ativ.vcring hi= Honor, counsel said that Mrs. Bauk'tt hm) bought the farm in MH!) at £7.") per acre, and it. was sold j by her in February. 11120, at £lO5, thus making £3O per acre. Thomas F. Graham gave evidence on lines .similar to counsel's statement. Cross-examined by Mr. Hutehen, witness admitted that,he put the property on the market a few weeks after the deal tit £l3O per acre. * 11 is Honor: Is that a fair sample of the way the price of land goes up m 'l'aranaki?—Witness replied that he put a big price on the farm as he was not particularly anxious to soil. A corroborative statement was oiven by J. H. Graham. George H." Buckeridge, land agent, of Hawera. gave evidence as to authority being received from Mrs. Bartlett to sell the property, and the particulars she gave were those which he told the Grahams when they were looking for a property. The area was 102 acres. To Mr. Uuteheii: Two davs a'ftcr the sale was cancelled he sold Grahams another property. William Rickard, farmer, now of Matamata, Waikato. said he sold Mrs. fiartlett a farm on the South Road lWra. in April, ]!)!!). The price was £/.) per acre. I [is farm bad been carrying 'rfl dairy enws, 4 stores, S sheep,'2 bulls, and 4 horses. He considered the wintering capacity of-the farm at that time was-til) dairy cows. Subsequent evidence called on behalf of the case for the Grahams was as to the carrying capacity of the farm and genera] dairying' , lsupc in t]]e winto . . season. The witnesses were- J B 1 Laurenson (Hawera), W. G. Lister (Low- ' garth), William Hntchens (Matapu) F . Mills (Tokaora), Leslie G Whyte (Ha- , ww«d, E. S. Bennett (Nornuurtjyj.

Horace J. Crocker (Normanby), J. G. Mackrae (Te Kiri), and C. S. Bye (Te Kiri),. PLAINTIFF'S CASE. For plaintiff, Mr. Hutehen contended that there had been no breach of the agreement, either in respect of the clause as to the limitation of the number of ' stock to be depastured, or in regard to j the crops to be preserved for the' Grahams. A little over an acre of car-1 rots was sown, but a poor crop resulted; there was a little damage by pigs trespassing into the paddock, but plaintiff was entitled to an eighth of the crop for the pigs. None were taken for this purpose. The turnips were not' eaten off.' A sowing was made in December, but did not come away, so a second sowing was put down in January. This was coming through the ground when defendants visited the place. Later, club root and the fly affected the crop. All arrangements were made to give possession on July. 1. Mr. Hutehen 'submitted that, on the evidence given for defendant, there was no proof that any representation was made as to the carrying capacity of the farm. If there were any proof, such a statement could be classed as merely a statement of opinion .based on the plaintiff's experience. The farm had carried the amount of stock named, 130 head having actually been wintered in the year 1919. She took possession in June, 1919, and the amount of stock mentioned was on the farm until September. • Plaintiff, Jessie A. Bartlett, gave evidence as to the amount of stock put on the farm. She said that on taking possession in June she brought 48 head from her previous property. This number comprised 20 cows, 3 horses, 17 yearlings, 2 bulls, and some pigs. A lot of 20 heifers were grazed for Mr. Wilcox, her brother-in-law, in, addition to which she bought two further lots of cows, 2-8 head in June and 32 head in July. There was a lot of rough feed, and it was necessary to have the stockto eat it off or it would have rotted. Cross-examined by Mr. Spratt: She sold 10 cows at the end of September, but it was not through shortage of feed. At the end of June last there was just as much grass on the property as on the average farm. In her opinion it was not eaten bare. The Court adjourned till 10 o'clock this morning.