A LAND DEAL.

Taranaki Daily News, 23 August 1921, Page 6

A LAND DEAL.

MISREPRESENTATION ALLEGED. A HAWERA CASE. The Supreme Court at New Plymouth was engaged all of yesterday’s sitting with the continuation of the hearing of the claim for £l5OO damages for alleged misrepresentation made by Cecil H. Harrison, of Hawera, against Mrs. Mary J. Grant (Mokoia). The case arose out of the sale of a farm by Mrs. Grant to Ha prison. Plaintiff, under cross-examination, admitted that the winter and spring had been severe for farming. He did not remember saying that he was going to milk 24 cows on the property, but admitted that he sold the milking machine just after he went into the property. On the Friday before witness bought the property his brother had reported that the farm was good buying at £llO per acre. He admitted having referred to another case and saying that as the plaintiff had won in that instance he did not see why he should not have a try also. This was after proceedings had been commenced. Re-examined: All the factory cheques went to the Settlers’ Loan Company, who had financed him, and he was allowed £l4 per month to live on. Out of this he had paid for incidental expenses, such as haystack, horse shoeing, staples and nails, and the cose of putting down a fresh well. At present he had 22 cows and two horses on the place. There was not enough feed, and he had to cart on a ton of turnips every second day to keep the stock going. He was securing these from his brothers. When he was taken over the property he was not shown the 17% acres which he afterwards found had also been used by Mrs. Grant. THE NEGOTIATIONS. Evidence in corroboration was given by plaintiff’s brother, Edgar Harrison, who said that he made an inspection of the farm, and was accompanied over the property by David G,rant. 'ln reply to questions Grant assured witness that the carrying capacity was from 32 to 33 cows, and other necessary stock. When he visited the place in April? however, after his brother had taken over, he saw the stock were, badly off for feed.

Cross-examined: He had had about five farms during his twenty years residence in New Zealand, but was not a speculator. Ho was sure he asked Bates (representing the land agents) about the carrying capacity. Maurice Bates, of Hamilton, and formerly a land salesman with Grant and Campbell, of Hawera, said he took Edgar Harrison out to Grant’s farm. Before going out he made a copy of the particulars as given on the authority for sale, and on the road out he gave this copy to Harrison. On the farm they were shown over by D. Grant. lie pointed out the ten acres leased from the Maoris, but remarked it was of little use and there was no need to mention it. Witness’ did not know whether Harrison heard this. From what Grant said he understood that the 42 acres was carrying all the stock then on. A native named Poi said Grant had fold him that- he paid £37 per acre for the 12 acres which comprised the freehold part of the farm. •Ijp k. Campbell, land agent, gave particulars of the negotiations leading up to the sale of the farm. He said particulars were given to Harrison from the authority 1o sell as filled in by Mrs. Grant. He did not remember telling Harrison that if he cleaned up the place it would bring £175 per acre. THE DEFENCE. Mr. E. J. Prendergast said the defence was that it was a fair estimate that the property would carry thirty cows and horses. They contended that it was not sufficient for Harrison to put stock on the place and let them graze. The property bad to he farmed. It was essential that plaintiff should have grown root crops and worked the land to the very best advantage. Hail he done so the land was reasonably capable of carrying the quantity of* stockit had been represented to carry. Counsel was of opinion that had there not been the sudden cessation in the demand lor land nothing would have been heard of this action. The real position was probably that Harrison purchased with the idea, of speculating; the land boom eased and he was “left.” It was [also contended on behalf of defendant that the alleged representations to the I effect that the carrying capacity of the , farm was 32 or 35 cows were not made, and also that Harrison took possession knowing that the defendant was also using another property of 17 acres In conjunction with the farm. Evidence was given by defendant. Under cross-examination she denied having said that if Harrison had come to her instead of sending a lawyer's letter, she would have made him an allowance in respect of the present claim. She may have said that she might have let him off his interest money. In reply to His Honor witness said she believed 30 cows could be kept on> the 42 acres without buying any feed or using other areas. Defendant’s son, David J. Grant, gave particulars of the negotiations with Harrison. He told plaintiff that the carrying capacity of the farm was 30 cows, or the equivalent in other stock. He pointed out the adjoining property, which was used by them for carrying stock, and also informed him of the other paddocks used for farming purposes.

Continuing, witness said Harrison made a thorough inspection of the property before purchasing. Witness did not try to avoid the blackberry. With regard to the carrying capacity of the farm witness said that discussing the matter with the plaintiff, they had come to a decision that the place would carry 30 cows and 2 horses. Grant had pointed out to Harrison that the 17 acres mentioned had been used in conjunction with the farm, and also other paddocks of 10 acres and 27 acres respectively. About 6 of the 10 acres were used for hay. At the time he signed the authority there were 34 cows, 7 horses and 16 calves on the property. Other stock were grazing on the i 7 acres. Witness said he remembered Harrison calling at his place in May or June, but the carrying capacity of the property was not discussed.

In answer to Mr. O’Dea. witness said he gave it as his opinion that the farm would carry 30 cows and horses. When he wrote the authority stating that the place would carry that number ha meant 30 to include horses. He mad’ the authority out in the daytime. Had it baen made out at nighttime he would

have put the number of cows on. the properly as nothing, because at nighttime (he cows were on the outside paddocks. Witness denied having tried to induce Harrison to believe that the house was on the freehold portion of the property. While showing Harrison round the farm, witness said ho mentioned the 17 acres, and also the fact that he took hay off the 10 acres. He denied having told Harrison that the 42 acres was carrying 34 or 36 cows year in and year out. H. A. K. McNae, a buyer for the Feilding Bacon Company, gave evidence as to introducing Grant to Harrison when the latter was looking for a farm. In witness’ presence Grant gave Harrison particulars of two farms—the 10 acres and the 42 in question. He told Harrison that the 42 acres would carry 27 to 30 cows. He also mentioned that the 17 acres were being used in conjunction with the larger farm. Witness understood that it was the carrying capacity of the 42 acres that was being discussed, and that Grant may have been tuning other stock on his other p arms. D. E. Wills, dairy -farmer. Ohangai, said that Harrison, in August, told him (witness) that ha was well pleased

with the place. Tie had had an offer for the farm of £l4O an acre, but would ■ not sell as he wanted more. i J. B. Lauronson, also a farmer of the [ district, said he considered the farm l would carry 30 cows. ■ At. 9.30 last night the case was ad- | journed till 10 a.m. to-day.