A FARM’S VALUE.

Taranaki Daily News, 12 February 1921, Page 8

A FARM’S VALUE.

JiHSREPRESENTATION ALLEGED. CASE FOR THE DEFENCE. ADJOURNED TILL MONDAY. In the Supreme Court, New Plymouth, yesterday, hearing was continued before Mr. Justice Hosking and a jury of twelve, of the case of G. H. Quinn (of Mokoia) v. Alfred B. Catchpole (now of Ohaupo), in which plaintiff alleged that defendant had fraudulently misrepresented the value of a farm he sold to Quinn. Plaintiff’s claim was for £3528, as payment for loss and damages. Mr. P. 6’Dea appeared for plaintiff and Mr. Brown (Wanganui) for defendant. fThe previous day’s sitting had just concluded when the evidence in chief of Quinn bad been completed, and on resuming yesterday cross-examination was commenced by Mr. Brown. Plaintiff admitted that he had placed the property with Catchpole, junr., for sale again on July 6 before he had taken possession. The price he put on it was £9B and the carrying capacity was set dlwn at 35 to 40 cows. The latter particulars, however, wen*, filled in by Catchpole. It was stated during proceedings that the Government valuation of the property was £45 per acre. Other witnesses for plaintiff were Louis F. Bell. (Mokoia), and James Baldwin (Mokoia). It was quite true, they said, that Catchpole’s cows had got the hair rubbed off their necks through trying to get over the fences into neighboring properties, presumably after the better feed.

Mr. O’Dea put in an authority to sei; given by Catchpole to a land agency in which the price asked for the property was £7O, and later this was altered to £B5. THE DEFENCE In opening the case for the defence, Mr. Brown emphasised that the other side must show clearly that the representations had been made; that they were false; that defendant knew, or ought to have known, they were such; and that it was an inducing cause of the contract. If facts were brought to defendant’s knowledge and he pursued his enquiry up to a certain point, and then discontinued enquiry, he took the place at his own risk.

Regarding the evidence as to values, Mr. Brown said there were always a certain number in the community who believed that- things were going all wrong, or that, in the case of Taranaki, land values were too high. The jury had seen that type the previous day giving evidence for plaintiff. They were a valuable element in the community, but the subject was quite beside the point. His Honor: Plaintiff has got to show that the statements of Catchpole were fraudulently made. Because a man purchased a farm for £5O, which was actually worth only £4O, he could not claim the difference. That was not the law.

Defendant, Alfred Benjamin Catchpole, now living aft Ohaupo, said he bought the farm in August, 1914. It was then in a neglected state and he put in a large amount of improvement, including fencing, manuring, and clearing of gorse. The front part of the farm (twenty-five acres) was much poorer than the back and he never used it for milking. When he gave the statement to the Loan and Mercantile in June, 1919. there were fifty head of stock on tIH? farm—2B cows, 7 heifers, i»nd the balance was young stock from the year before, and horses. The following spring was bad, with shortage of feed, "and he had to sei! some at a sac rifice. He Started the season in August. 1919, with thirty-three cows, and later he sold seven off, and finished the season with twenty-eight When land was celling well in the neighborhood he gave instructions to put up the price to £9O. When Quinn came, out to the farm he was introduced by witness’ son. He said he thought the place would suit him quite well; that he had seen a number of others and it compared favorably with them. The impression witness gained was that Quinn would take the farm, if he could get it at his own price. In regard to figures, he told Quinn that he had started the season before, with thirty-three cows. He told him that he had carried fifty head of stock the previous winter, and also that this number had to be reduced in the spring owing to shortage of feed. Quinn had tried to get from witness a statement as to what the farm would carry. Witness did not give a definite answer, but told plaintiff that with better methods of farming he could carry considerably more. His son told Quinn that witness had not worked the farm to the best advantage. Neither witness nor his son suggested that the farm would .carry forty-five cows. He had never milked thirty-five cWws while on the farm himself. Witness never told Quinn that ho could carry forty-five cows on the farm. At the house witness handed to Quinn a memorandum book containing figures as to the milk returns for the last six years, and Qmnn Handed it to witness’ son, asking him to make out the returns for the last year. The.se came to £470. Deductions by the factory for share payments, butter and supplies would come to another £BO. He made £144 profit on dry stock. ‘■MAKING A LIVING.” ’ Examined by Mr. O’Dea: He did not know what he'ipaid for the property, as it was part exchange. He did not know whether it wa/ £36 per acre or not. He was just making a living on the place, and if his son, Les, said he had been doing well, and did not need to bother, it was not correct. He admitted having signed an authority for, Lynskey and Evans to sell, which said the farm had carried 50 grown cattle and horses, and he asked £l3O per acre for it as a going concern. He had had it in the agents’ hands for the last three or four years. The place had been quoted .indirectly to two returned soldiers at £7O, but he denied ever having stated to a neighbor that he did not know how they were going to got on at that price as ho cpuld hardly make a- “do” of it at £3O. Leslie W. Catchpole,, son of defendant, said lie had about 12 years’ personal experience of farming. He gave an account of introducing Quinn to several properties, none of which suited, and then witness suggested seeing his father’s farm, which they did, He told Quinn that it carried 30 eowg on the back part, but did not say it would milk 45. Shortly after the deal was completed Quinn' expressed complete satisfaction with the farm. He gave .witness authority to sell, stating ! Quinn was in ill-health. He denied > that Quinn him in Hawera i about a statement made by his aunt, &bQUt tn - forty-fiv*

cows I can milk?” Witness had been over the farm lately and contended that some feed had been allowed to go to waste. To Mr. O’Dea: He knew that his father had not done so very well on the farm and had raised a third mortgage for £3OO after being five years on the place. This was, however, because his father had spent all the money he was making in improvements. To Mr. Brown: At the time of the purchase by Quinn there, was a good deal of talk about the price of butterfat for the coming season, and many prospective purchasers thought they were going to get three shillings pej lb and not less than 2s 6d. For this reason many people paid more for land than it was really worth. At 5.40 the Court adjourned till today. To suit the convenience of the jury this case will not be resumed till Monday.