A BACK-COUNTRY FARM.

Taranaki Daily News, 7 December 1921, Page 6

A BACK-COUNTRY FARM.

OPERATIONS DURING THE WAR. ATTORNEY CHARGED WITH NEGLECT AN EX-SOLDIER’S CASE. A second day was occupied by the Supreme Court, at New Plymouth yesterday with the continuation of the hearing of W. F. Spence’s claim of £2500 against Arthur C. Pease, the plaintiff’s contention being that Pease had neglected his duties as attorney for Spence while the latter was at the war. Mr. M. Myers (Wellington) appeared for plaintiff, with him Mr. R. H. Quilliam (New Plymouth). Defendant was represented by Messrs. P. O’Dea and R. D. Welch (Havyera). The witness McKenzie who had given evidence on the previous day as to the falling off in the state of the plaintill’s farm during his absence, was crossexamined by Mr. O’Dea. The farm owned by Spence, he said, would be similar country to that at the back of Stratford and Inglewood, but would he probably better than the Inglewood back country. Land similar to Spence’s, grassed and felled, would be worth about £G per acre. He did not think it would have been difficult to lease ’ the farm in 1917, though at the latter ; part of the war period it was hard tc get men to take on land. Witness was questioned as to Spence’s farm. The sheep, he said, were of the useful Taranaki type, a Romney-Lin-i coin cross. He did not think that sheep of the Romney class, such as from I the Feilding district, did better on this hilly country than the Taranaki sheep EVIDENCE OF SETTLERS. • A settler at Kiritihere, Percy C. Rose 1 said he was 13 miles from Spences 1 place, and knew the district intimately ■ having been a resident for twenty years. Spence was known as an up-to 1 date and practical farmer, but durinc • his absence at the war a lot of the farm 1 went back to second growth. Witness went into camp about the same week 1 as Spence, and when he came back h<

was greatly surprised at its appearance. having known the good condition of the property previously. No one could help seeing that there had been gross neglect on someone’s part. He assessed the amount now required for I cutting second growth, re-grassing, and 'dealing with noxious weeds on the two I new clearings would be £770. Asked by Mr. O’Dea as' to what the I position of the property was at the : present time as compared with the state lin 1919, the witness said Spence had given a good deal of attention to the 200-acre section, but through someone's gross negligence he had been left a heritage of hard work for years to come. He did no-t think the 127-acre section was fit to carry any sheep. Another farmer at Kiritihere, Claude C Walker, gave details of an interview he had with Pease in 19i17 with reference to Spence’s place. Pease’s conversation gave witness to understand that he had lost confidence in Scott, who was on Spence’s farm, and mentioned particularly the mustering. Witness knew from his own knowledge that there was never a proper muster of the stock while Spence \yas away. Pease asked if witness, could recommend anyone for the position on Spence’s place, and he replied that there was only one ' person in the district who would be available —a man named Berg. On being interviewed, however, Berg declined to take the position. Pease also seemed to be dissatisfied with the time sheets which had been sent in, being of the opinion that there was too much time charged for the amount of work which had been done. 1 ‘ Answering Mr. O’Dea, Walker said I Berg’s reason for not going to Spence's j farm was his dissatisfaction with the | way things were going on at the place. | Evidence on similar lines was £ivcn by Louis Klein, Moeatoa, and Dalton Kelly, who resided two miles away. Under cross-examination the latter said He did not know of any other farm that had gone back during the war except the properties that had been thrown up. In reply to His Honor, the witness said that assuming Spence’s farm had not been neglected It probably would have carried 300 more sheep than it actually did last season. This concluded the case for the plaintiff. CASE FOR THE DEFENCE. Tn opening the case for the defence, Mr. O’Dea formally moved for a nonsuit on the grounds that even if losses had been caused through the neglect of Scott, Pease, as attorney, was not responsible for the defaults of his subagent or substitute. Counsel quoted a number of authorities on this subject. In reply, Mr. Myers said he did not dispute the law quoted by counsel for defendant, but he had misconceived the plaintiff’s case. He was suing on the Grounds of personal breach of duty on the part of defendant. There was .an ’arrangement that Pease, from time to time, should make periodical visits for the purpose of seeing that his mandate was being properly administered. If this had been done, or if Pease had appointed a deputy, the court would never have been troubled with the ease. The non-suit was refused, with leave to move at a later stage.

Continuing, for the defendant, Mr. O’Dea recalled that .Spence was originally financed by Joe Pease, and on the latter’s death the administration of. the estate was taken over by Arthur Pease, the plaintiff. The management of his brother’s estate occupied three days a week, and other duties which occupied his time at that period included the position of chairman of the Eltham County Council, a director of, the West Coast Refrigerating Company, a director of the South Taranaki Shipping Cornpan v, a director of the MangatQki Dairy Company, and work in connection with patriotic cbmmittees. He was too busy really to attend to his own affairs, and the journey from Mangatoki to Spence’s farm was about 120 miles, and in the winter time meant a journey occupying the best part of three days. Discussing the negotiations leading up to Pease accepting the position of attorney. counsel said Spence approached Pease and asked him if he would take up the position as his financial agent. Ou this occasion Pease made it quite clear that he could not undertake the management of the farm, which was obvious. Spence accepted this and said he had complete confidence in a man named Kelly, who was to take over the management. Pease indicated that he could not even guarantee to visit the property, but would do his best. THE MANAGER’S STATUS. Referring to the actual power of attorney, Mr. O’Dea said this was naturally in wide terms, but there was absoiutelv no ground for the suggestion whicix SnAiice had. made in evidence that

Pease was after his farm. Pease was not that class of man. Reading a letter sent by Spence to Pease justr-before g o ;ng to Trentham, Mr. O’Dea said Spence wrote telling defendant that he was unable to get D. Kelly to take the position of manager, but that the father of the boy on the place (Scott) had been left in charge, and things were

quite safe. * The father, Spence sfcid, understood all ordinary work. Counsel remarked that this was giving Scott a good reputation. An attempt had been made to show that Scott had not been left in the position of manager, and it was admitted that Scott’s appointment was only temporary for a period, as Pease was in hopes of getting Kelly to act. When Kelly was not able to act Scott was left in charge. It was quite clear that Spence was a. good farmer, and it was doubtful if anyone could be. found to handle the place as capably as Spence could. Some time in October. 1915, Spence asked Scott if he would look after the farm, to which Scott replied that he would do what he could, but intimated that he was unable to give all his time to the farm. Spence was apparently satisfied. From subsequent interviews it was clearly understood that Spence was to manage the place. At an interview held on the farm there were present Pease, Spence, Scott senr., and his three sons, and the evidence of all these would be called to show what took place. , Spence had' said that when on final leave he thought the farm looked as if it had a blight on it. Why, then, did he not get rid of the Scotts? The only reason Spence could give was that it was the best he could do with the labor offering. Pease’s evidence, said counsel, would be to the effect t that from the reports received from Scott he thought there was no necessity to visit the farm, in a letter to Spence he told him that he had not gone to the farm, but gave details showing the result of sales of stock and the amovnt.s paid in wages. Replying to one communication from Pease Spence said he was glad to learn that the Scotts were doing all right, and in view of this counsel asked if it could be said that Spence had never appointed Scott to take charge. He also sent instructions to Scott, which

was further evidence that ho acknowledged Scott. At the Awakino sale in July. 1917, Pease talked with Joe Scott, and as the result of the conversation became suspicious that things were not going too well, but what was he to do? If Scott was put off there vtould have been no one to. replace him. Pease expected that as Spence had been wounded he would be home any time, and therefore decided to wait his arrival. When Spence returned he asked for »ies of all correspondence between Pease and Scott, and all the files were placed at his disposal. In further letters Spence made no reference to any claim pending against Pease, and it was November. 1920, —three years after Spence had got back —:that a charge was made against Pease. The whole thing counsel described as a “try-on.” DEFENDANT IN THE BOX. Evidence by defendant was to the effect that he’ was a farmer at Mangatoki. holding 7<>o acres which he had taken up in ,1885. He reviewed the financial relations with Spence, stating that the amount of his indebtedness now was £4500. No interest had been paid on this. In addition to advancing money he had guaranteed Spence’s hank accounts. Referring to Spence’s departure for the war, witness said that when plaintiff said he was going he told Spence that he would do everything possible to help him. The evidence traversed in detail the arrangements between the parties, and the correspondence which took place after Spence left New Zealand. Witness was given to understand that Scott was in charge. After Spence came back he did not, at any time, tell witness that he should not have allowed Scott to stay on at the farm. Examined by Mr. Myers: Spence was not correct in saying that witness allowed Scott to play “ducks and drakes” with the stock. He did not recollect sending an answer to the Tetter containing this sentence, as he did not think it was a‘ charge against witness. He admitted that, he had never made an inspection of the farm since December, 19115, and he did not think it necessary to send a reliable agent, f he had a bush farm of his own he would no doubt try to make a visit of inspection occasionally. The case stood at this stage when the court adjourned at G. 15 p.m. till today. Mr. Myers explained that as he had an engagement at Gisborne he would bo leaving the case for plaintiff in the hands of Mr. Quilliam. The case was originally set down for Friday, and as he had already postponed his Gisborne engagement by two days he could not delay it further. He intimated that he was leaving to-day en route to Gisborne.