SALE OF A FARM.

Taranaki Daily News, 17 August 1922, Page 6

SALE OF A FARM.

ALLEGED MISREPRESENTATION. CLAIM FOR DAMAGES. Yesterday’s sitting of the Supreme Court at New Plymouth was devoted to hearing the action in which Leslie Samuel Dutton claimed from Henry Herbert Upson the sum of £BOO damages for alleged misrepresentations in connection with the sale of a farm on the Egmont Road, near Egmont Village. The following jury was empanelled: Messrs. W. J. Scoble, G. W. Hintchon, G. Tuffery, J. S. Philp. C. Westbury, H. H. Gunn. lE. J. Ward. W. H. Woods, W. H. Beasley. A. Alexander. A. E. Washer and N. Tehan. Mr. Washer Was chosen foreman. Mr. R. H. Quilliam appeared for the plaintiff, and Mr. L. M. Moss for defendant. Plaintiff’s statement of claim stated that he purchased from the defendant a leasehold estate for £6OO and had completed the agreement on June 21, 1920, on which day he took possession. During the negotiations, plaintiff alleged, defendant had stated that the carrying capacity of the land was 17 cows as well as horses and other stock, and that he had wintered 17 cows on the land. Further, he was alleged to have stated that his predecessor had milked and wintered 17 cows on the land. Plaintiff said he relied on the truth of these statements and that the representations were false and untrue to the knowledge of the defendant, and in consequence he claimed the sum of £BOO, the costs of the action and such other relief as the court should consider just.

Leslie Samuel Dutton said that formerly he was an accountant, giving up that position in July, 1920, for health reasons, when he decided to go in for farming. It was in May that he made up his mind, and in that month he in- < spected Upson’s place, of which he had heard from Mr. .Jellyman, who informed him that he had a place on the Egmont Road of 40 acres capable of carrying 17 cows and 2 horses at a rental of £lO per year. The good will was £6OO and there was an optional purchasing clause. The lease had six years to run.’ Jellyman got these particulars from some papers. He asked Jellyman the carrying capacity, rfnd explained that he was leaving town owing to illhealth and was looking for a place of 17 to IS cows and had been given the above information from his file. VISIT TO THE PROPERTY. He arranged’to visit the property, and accordingly his , father-in-law (Mr. Langridge) and Mr. Jellyman went out, | where they were m*>t by Upson. During the inspection Mr. Langridge asked the carrying capacity. Upson replying that it was 17 cows and 2 horses. Witness asked if he had milked that number of cows, and defendant said. ‘’Yes. and my predecessor also.” Asked about the dry stock on the place. Upson explained that he was running dry stodv at that time but had milked the cows. Discussing the price. Jellyman asked £6OO cash, but plaintiff suggested £3OO with the balance on mortgage. Upson was brought, out. and plaintiff said to him, ‘•Relying on your statement I’ll take the place.” On August 2he went to.reside on the place. He put 13 cows and one horse on the farm. A bull was at his place for about three weeks, and a neighbor took it and it remained there for some time. In January he lost two c-ows by accidents. He did not think the grass came away in the summer es well as it should, and he put as much as 4cwt of manure in some of the padducks. In the autumn the grass seemed to be doing a bit better. He had seven acres of grass hay and four acres of oaten hay. In addition he had three and a half acres of turnips, but it was a poor crop.

Tn the middle of June. 1921, he bought five additional cows, and in July sold three and purchased two, leaving him with fifteen cows, his horse and the bull, which was returned. About the middle of August he lost four cows and the horse. They were going round getting swamp grass, and .had to be pulled out of the bog. They were in such poor condition that they lived only a day or two. The stock generally was in poor condition, and the place barren of grass. Two more cows got into the bog, and had to be pulled out. They slipped calves, and were of no further use to him. There was only one paddock that did not have a bog in it. From Mr. McGraeken he got the use of four acres. Plaintiff had plenty of hay, and he . did not buy any additional winter feed because it was hard to get and he could not afford it. The cows were too weak to take to the sale. From September he had nine cows, and the bull which he sold in November. Later he was loaned another cow, and he bought a yearling bull, which was the stock he had at present. During the last season he had 4 acres of oaten hay, 3 acres of meadow hay and 34 acres of turnips. The crops were good and the stock had got on fairly well, though not overfed. There was very little grass on the place during this winter. The season had

been a good one. and witness was satisfied he could not carry more than ]0 cows and one horse. By carrying capacity he meant carrying the stock all the year round. Had he been told that the place would carry only 10 cows he would not have bothered with it. He made up his claim by loss of butter, June. 1921, to June, 1922, at £7B. He started at June, 1921, because he had not intended to stock up the place to its full capacity during the first year. The loss of four cows and a horse he assessed at £l3O. He estimated his loss for four years, the balance of the lease, at £9O per year on his butterfat and the estimated loss over the whole in calves and pigs at £5O and £lOO respectively. His profit and loss account showed a loss of £545 on trading account, exclusive of his living expenses, during the two years he had been on the place. He had £lOOO cash when he went there, and had nothing left of it. THE CROSS-EXAMINATION. 4 Cross-examined by Mr. Moss as to a bill of sale over his stock, witness stated that this was given to raise the costs of the present action. He detailed his liabilities, which with £3OO still owing to Upson and £337 due to his mother, amounting to £BOO odd. He had given • hjs butter-fat returns since June. 1921, I because in his first year he had not ’ stocked the farm to its full capacity owing to the high price of stock. He did not know what losses Union or his

[ predecessor had made. Hp had purI chased the four’ cows which he had lost at different sales. He also purchased five cows from Air. McGregor, and, while i they were lame, Mr. McGregor had told him they were not suffering from Waihi disease. He considered that where i one horse could be run two cows could be kept. To His Honor: You must have a horse to go to the factory. To Mr. Moss: He had spelled the horse simply on humanitarian grounds. Mr. Moss': *Do you deny that the neighbors compelled you to spell the horse ?

Witness: I do. Mr. Moss: Did you not drive it to death?

Witness: Emphatically no. Continuing, plaintiff stated it would be news to him that Upson had not lost any cows on the place. Regarding a drain, he had placed some sacks across it to dam the water and had put in earth work to divert the water to the completed work. Witness was questioned concerning the feed he had provided at different seasons during the time he had been on the place. He had never received any complaints conerning his treatment of the stock, nor could he remember a neighbor coming over to him about the lameness of stock after he had installed milking machines. He denied that he had overfed turnips, or that the place had gone back in weeds since Upson had left. Witness did not attribute any of his loss to his lack of experience in farming; he had employed experienced farmefs for work requiring skilled men. He had relied on Langridge concerning the advisability of entering the place, but had figured out what it would cost to run and the revenue he could expect. He was then questioned closely regarding the use to which he had put certain of his paddocks. Counsel suggested that he bed never used 16 acres of his place, but defendant denied it. When they went over the place Upson explained what paddocks had to be ploughed and sown in grass in accordance with the lease. He ! would deny that the farm had gone back since he went in.

Continuing, witness said that at present he had a pretty good stack of hay on the place, a little of which might have been damaged by the weather. He sometimes sledged it out to the different paddocks and sometimes it would be carried to the n earthy pad docks and there distributed. The milking machines were put in with a view to the purchase of another place close by. At that time he did not know that his own place would not carry 17 cows. He knew that the additional place he was after, which was the same area as his own, was not quite so good as his, and that the rental was higher, but he was prepared to take it because the goodwill was practically nil. He had made no attempt to sell the place this year; he had agreed with Upson not to. sell the place until the mortgage was paid He had discussed it with a man named Willing, but unless he could get reliei from the mortgage the deal was off. To Mr. Quilliam: There may havt been one or two of the cows purehasec from McGregor among the four he hac lost. More water ran into the swamy than into the drain. EVIDENCE OF FARMERS. Luke Langridge, farmer, Egmont Vil lage, said he had 'beei\ a farmer in Taranaki for about 15 years, and prior to that had been brought up on a form in the Old Country. He remembered asking Upson how he arrived at carrying capacity of the place at 17 cows when he was running dry cows and sheep. Upson had replied that he had run 17 cow’s, and his predecessor had done likewise, but that year he was running dry stock, and it was surprising the amount he turned out. He defined carrying capacity as the number of cows the place would carry all the year round. Dutton had made the offer of £3OO cash to Jellyman provided that | the place would carry 17 cows and two horses. Upson had then 'been brought out and an agreement had been reached. It was necessary to know the carrying capacity of a place to find out what the returns would be. He was familiar with the methods of farming adopted by Dutton, and could not see how he could have run more cows than he did. He had grown the proper amount of winter feed for the size of the place. The land was of poor second-class quality, and, as it was now and as it was when it was bought, it could not carry more than 10 cows and one horse. It could be made to carry more but the cost would 'be too great. ) To Mr. Moss: With the advice and | assistance Dutton had had he did not | see where plaintiff could have done better. He might have done so had he had more money. There were no more blackberries on the place than when Dutton had taken it over. He had advised him what to put in at different times. . Witness 'was questioned concerning the action taken by Dutton in respect to some of his paddocks. He was quite sure that Upson knew that plaintiff intended to use the place as a dairy farm. Herbert Hollins, who formerly occupied Dutton’s farm, said he had leased the farm from 1916 to 1918, two milking seasons. He had about 20 years farming experience, and he had carried six and nine cows respectively in the two seasons he was on the place. It would not carry more than ten cows and one horse. In 1918 U.pson had bought the place for £lO. the lease having eight vcars to run. He had not told Lpson that the farm would carry 17 cows ano ■2 horses. Since Dutton had been in possession he had assisted him with some of the work, and thought that Dutton had acted on the advice of the neighboring farmers, whose advice was sound. He did not know of any improper methods of farming used by him. To Mr Moss: He would be on Dutton's place about two or three times a year. It was very inferior to his own place, where lie carried 17 cows, a bull, and a couple of horses on a 50-acre farm. Mr. Moss questioned witness regarding tile* lease he had eold , to 3I? S tn, drew his attention to thefaet that winlie he alleged he had received only £lO the lease contained clauses that tl. lesseewas to paint the house and plough and crop ten acres. vredcriek Evidence was also given by Frederick Earp James McCracken, William Heorge (neighbors of plaintiff), and by Thomas Mnrnhv (stock-dealer , concerning the S of the property when ton wen into possession andean td h,, methods /do™ the best he could, and that the nUce 4 would not run more than ten cows. P This closed the case for the and the Court rose until 10 o clock this