DISPUTED LAND DEAL.

Taranaki Daily News, 15 April 1921, Page 5

DISPUTED LAND DEAL.

A TARANAKI CASE. DECREE OF SPECIFIC PERFORMANCE OPPOSED. The Court of Appeal at Wellington continued its sitting on Wednesday, when it had before it an appeal by Thomas Frank Graham, of Te Kiri, farmer, and John Henry Graham, of Waitara, fafmer (Mr. F. C. Spratt), appellants, against a decision of His Honor Mr. Justice Salmond granting Jessie Arnott Bartlett, of Hawera, widow (Mr. Hutchen), respondent, a decree of specific performance of an agreement dated > February 24, X 920, wherein the appellants (defendants) agreed to purchase from the respondent (plaintiff), all the freehold estate or interest in 162 acres 2 roods and 16 perches of land in the Patea district at £lO5 per acre.

In her statement of claim, the plaintiff had alleged that she had applied to the defendants specifically to perform the agreement, but the defendants had wrongfully refused to do so, wherefore she claimed that the defendants be ordered to specifically perform the said agreement; £lOO damages sustained by 'the plaintiff by reason of the defendants not having performed the agreement according to the terms thereof; £5600 damages for the non-perform-ance of the” agreement if for any reason the same could not be specifically performed. The statement of defence had alleged that on or before February 24, 1920, at Hawera, the plaintiff wilfully misrepresented to the defendants that the farm had a carrying capacity of 70 milking cows, 10 heifers, and other stock, and wintered 130 head; that they were misled by such representation and on the faith thereof they were induced to enter into the agreement and to pay a deposit of £200; that in breach of material terms and conditions of the agreement the plaintiff had depastured and grazed additional stock on the land and left no winter grazing Whatever; and in consequence of the said misrepresentations ''and breaches of the plaintiff the defendants Repudiated the agreement and refused to complete, and the consideration for the £2OO had wholly failed. They counterclaimed for recission of,the agreement and a refund of the deposit of £2OO, with interest thereon at 6 per cent, per annum; and if the court held that the plaintiff was entitled to specific performance they counter-claimed for damages or compensation in the sum of £l5OO. As stated, Mr. Justice Salmond granted the plaintiff a decree of specific performance, and also 6 per cent, on the unpaid purchase money from the due date of completion until actual completion and a refund of the outgoings on the property by way of interest and otherwise during that period, but she was held accountable to the defendants for any rent and profits derived by her during that period. On the coun-ter-claim the defendants were allowed damages in the sum of £260.

After hearing argument as to whether or not the said judgment was erroneous in point of law and in matter of fact, the’ court reserved judgment.