A MOKOIA FARM.

Taranaki Daily News, 24 August 1922, Page 6

A MOKOIA FARM.

ALLEGED MISREPRESENTATION. HEAVY DAMAGES CLAIMED. SUPREME COURT CASE. '• Another case arising out of alleged misrepresentation in the sale of a farm was commenced at the Supreme Court, New Plymouth, yesterday. The plaintiffs were George O. Burrell and Thos. J. Hurrell, Hawera, and Hector G. Thirkall, formerly of Hawera, but now of Patumahoe, South Auckland, while the defendant was William Andrew’ Officer, Paikau, Inglewood. > The plaintiff’s statement of claim set out that when viewing defendant’s farm with a view to purchase, the defendant had represented that he was milking 41 cow?, and that the farm would carry 45 cows, as well as other stock. The defendant was also alleged to have stated that a dam on the property was a great asset, as it would drive the turbine for the milking machines all the year round. A further statement was also alleged against defendant that, in the house, he had said that the farm would milk 45 cows easily, and would do up to 50 if 'jroperly manured, and that the defendant nad not done as well as he should have <.n account of The influenza epidemic. Likewise it was alleged that defendant had embodied his statements as to the carrying capacity of the farm in his authority to C. R. Stannard to act as liis agent in selling the place. The plaintiffs stated that they had believed and had acted on these statements, and had purchased the farm, but had subsequently ascertained that the defendant had not milked 41 cows on the farm, nor would it carry 45 cows or 50 with manuring. They also alleged that during the time defendant had worked the farm he had grazed some of his cows on another place, also that the dam would not drive the turbines all the year round, as it dried up. The plaintiffs claimed that the statements attributed to Officer were false and fraudulent to the knowledge of defendant. and were made with intent to deceive them. They, therefore, claimed the sum of £3300 as damages.

The following jury was empanelled: — Messrs. F. A. Shepherd, E. W. M. Lysons, K. G. Archer. W. T. Hookham, A. McHardy, E. Vickers, W. H. Benton, H. Marsh, J. E. Nixon, H. Abbott. A. C. Binnie and H. J. Snelling. Mr. McHardy was chosen foreman. Mr. P. O’Dea appeared for the plaintiffs. and Mr. F. C. Spratt for the defendant. PLAINTIFF’S CASE. Thomas E. Bickford, fanner, Mokoia, said he had a farm about a mile away from plaintiff's farm, which he knew, and which he had been over about a week ago. It was a poor place, with light, sandy soil, and gravel a few inches down. Over about three parts there was no grass, chiefly danthonia, hawkweed and other weeds. He did not think Hurrell’s place would carry more than 25 cows, and would not do that number well. Danthonia looked best in August and September, and would run to seed in about a month from then. Witness was of opinion that the. present occupant of the farm. Rogers, was a good average farmer. It would be fatal to crop the land owing to its lightness. Last year was a good one for dairying, and his returns had been 20001bs of butter fat more than the previous year from the same number of cows.

Replying to Mr. Spratt, he said he knew that previous occupiers of the place had taken off root crops of a sort, and also hay and oats, but he had never seen lucerne grown there. Danthonia was no good for dairy stock, but he could not say whether a sheep farmer would look on it as a serious matter. While witness did not consider that the place was really fit for dairying, it was a fact that the whole of the flat was used for that purpose, and had been so’ for years past. He had not farmed the place himself, but formed his opinion from his observations. There was no prejudice against the farm. Some of it he would not have at a gift. Amy W. Page, secretary of the Mells Co-operative Dairy Company, produced copies of the dairy returns of the milk supplied to the factory from the farm by Officer and subsequent tenants. The pay out in 1919-20 would be about two shillings, and in 1920-21 a little less. At this stage it was decided to accept a written statement from the witness, giving exact figures as to the pay outs for the different years. Evidence on similar lines to that of Bickford was given 'by James Baldwin and Louis Frank Bell concerning the carrying capacity of their own places, and their opinion of the farm in dispute. The first-named said that'the flat was known as “Poverty Flat.”

A NEIGHBOR'S EVIDENCE. George Henry Quinn, farmer, said his place plaintiff’s, and was of about 90 acres, for which he had paid £BO per acre. He had since had the price reduced to about £56 by means of an action in the Court. Before going on to his farm he had had no experience of danthonia, and when he went to look at his farm in June he thought the place looked well. In October, however, he found that danthonia went to seed. He would prefer his own place to Officer s, although the fatter had a better house. He estimated the carrying capacity of the place at about 25 cows. He thought it. would be a waste of money to topdress the place, as the only grass that had gone to seed for some years past was danthonia. He had top-dressed his own place with about 2 cwt. of manure per acre, but he saw no results from it. Rogers was a good farmer. Although last season was fairly wet, a child could have baled out the overflow of water from the dam, and he did not consider it very useful. It would be a haid struggle even with the reduction he had obtained in price. David Richardson, farmer, Mokoia. in addition to giving evidence akin to that of Baldwin and Bell, also related a £O6" versation he said he had had with Qfncer at the time Quinn bought his jjlace. Witness had mentioned that two returned soldiers were after the place Q u ‘ n J got, and also Officer’s farm, and he had mentioned that he did not think they would be able to make a “do of it. Witness stated that Officer had replied that he. too. did not think they would be able to get interest out of it, and had added that he had advised Thirkall to get his monev out of the place and leave & Hurrtlh. - --

In answer to Mr. Spratt, witness said he knew that some neighboring land changed hands at £BO and over-during 1919 and 1920:

Daniel Janies Nash, Taiporenui, deposed that when Officer had the farm he used to graze a number of dairy cows on about. 30 acres of Miss Lysaght’s place, on which witness was working at the time. Officer used to bring the cows there in the morning and take them back in the evening. Witness’s opinion concerning the farm coincided with that of the previous witnesses. The turbine would stop in the flush of the season owing to the lack of water. To Mr. Spratt: He had bought 16 calves from Officer about the middle, of the February in the year Officer had the farm. Samuel Smith, Manutahi, a previous occupier of Officer’s farm, said that when he took possession in 1914 there were 30 cows on the place, two of which he sold, the subsequeiA acquisition of four cows leaving him with 32, which he kept on the farm until February, when he leased Miss Lysaght’s place. In his first year he put six tons of slag on the farm. Miss' Lysaght’s place proved much better than the 96 acres of his own farm, which, he estimated, would carry from 28 to 30 cows at the outside. Witness exchanged his farm and stock and the lease of M’ 9S Lysaght’s farm, of which he had given up about 25 acres in 1917, with Officer for a sheep run at Tarata.

Two men, Emil Widner and John Goldfinch, gave evidence to the effect that during the influenza epidemic, and at the flush of the milking season, they had milked for Officer, 28 cows being the number milked. LAND AGENT’S EVIDENCE. William Cowan, land agent, Hawera, produced an authority from Officer to sell his farm, on which it was stated that the area was 96 odd acres with a carrying capacity of 45 cows. There was a marginal note by the salesman that there were waterpower and machinery on the place. Replying to Mr. Spratt, Cowan stated that his valuation for mortgage purposes was £6O per acre, while he estimated the value of the farm for sale at about £75 per acre. He did not think there would have been any difficulty in disposing of the farm to others than the plaintiffs. He had no reason to doubt Officer’s statement of the capacity of the place, and when he had inspected the farm, about ten or twelve days before the sale, the cows were in very good conditidn. Witness thought, from the inspection, that the dam would not provide power all the year round, and Officer had mentioned this fact. The darn was broken away and required raising. There were about 17 acres of ,'»reen oats and some turnips and young lucerne on _ the farm, as well as a stack of hay. The hay loft was also full.

To'Mr. O’Dea: Even though the carrying capacity were down to 25 cows, be thought there would be any amount of people after the place at that time at £BO per acre.

The accountant of the Farmers’ Co-op., Hawera, Albert Kebble Fyson, produced account sales showing the purchases and sales of stock by Officer during 1918 and 1919. He could not say where the stock purchased had gone to. John Eneas Campbell, farmer, Hawerh, sometime marine engineer, which calling he forsook in 1910 to enter into farming, detailed his inspection of the farm in company with his nephew, Thirkle, and Stannard, Cowan’s salesman. Before the inspection he had been told it was a good farm and would carry 45 cows, and he had also seen the authority to sell. They walked round the farm with Officer, who pointed out the grass coming away and spoke of the water supply, stating that the well would help the dam. Officer stated that the place would carry 45 cows, and, if manured, 55. Witness did not know it was danthonia land, and had he known that he would not have recommended his nephew to take the place. Officer had A>t mentioned the fact, nor had he said anything of Miss Lysaght’s place. They were shown a small patch of lucerne, which he thought was very good for winter; while Officer had turned on the turbine, stating that he would guarantee it to chop the wood and milk the cows. No mention had been made of the possibility of the dam going dry. On their returh home they had considered the price, and, after allowing for manure, they reckoned on 50 cows instead of 55, at £2O per cow, which they considered would give- a good Jiving. Witness subsequently visited the place in company with the Hurrells, Thirkle, and Standard. They met Officer carrying a very large turnip, which he instanced as what the farm would grow. When they went inside the house, Officer had again stated that the place would carry 45 cows, and, if manured, 55 cows. Witness advised lime for a start as manure.

To Mr. Spratt: He had given an option over his own farm, about a mile and a quarter from Hawera, to the RacingfClub, at £I Q 9 per acre, and subsequently' had given Stannard verbally ti price at £2OO per acre, at which figure land at the back of Normanby had at that time been sold. INSPECTING THE FARM. Hector Thirkle said he was 20 years of age when he went on to the farm, and had ■ been sheep-farming in Hawke’s Bay- since he was 15. Stannard had told him over the telephone that he had the farm he wanted, 96 £ acres, carrying 45 cows, at £BO per acre. He inspected the farm with Stannard, who had “cracked it up,” and said it was one of the finest in the district and a good paying proposition. On their way out Stannard reiterated his statement that the place had carried 45 cows. They saw Officer, who said he had milked 45 cows, and then took witness round'the paddocks, pointing out how well they were watered. He had then been shown the barn, and the dam which, Officer said, never went dry. Officer told him that the Lysaghts had used the power for shearing, and, in reply to witness, had 1 informed him that the shearing occupied a month. From witness’ knowledge of the number of hours per-day shearing-machines were in iise, he estimated from this statement that there •was sufficient water to milk with. Officer had also pointed 6ut the oats and turnips. Witness did not count the number of cows on the place, but there appeared to be 45. Officer mentioned that day that he intended to milk 55 cows in the next season. He talked over the proposition that night with uncle (Jas. Campbell), and next day they went out with Stannard to the farm. Witness corroborated his uncle’s evidence regarding this visit, adding that on this occasion he counted the stock, which totalled 43 cows and three horses. On drawing Officer’s attention to the fact that there were only 43 cows instead of 45, he had replied that he had cut out two or three culls. Witness then gave similar evidence to that of his uncle regarding his third visit, when the Hurrells, who had come forward to assist him financially, accompanied witness, Campbell and Stannard. When witness spoke to Officer regarding the milk returns, the defendant had stated

that, during the influenza epidemic, he had to get men in and they had not half milked the cows, consequently the returns would no* be a reliable guide. The Court then rose until ten o’clock this