A MOKOIA FARM.

Taranaki Daily News, 25 August 1922, Page 6

A MOKOIA FARM.

MISREPRESENTATION ALLEGED. SUPREME COURT CASE. ' FURTHER EVIDENCE HEARD. The Supreme Court at New Plymouth was engaged yesterday in hearing the continuation of a case arising out of alleged misrepresentation in the sale of a farm in the Mokoia district, near Hawera. The plaintiffs were George O. Hurrell and Thos. J. Hurrell, of Hawera, and Hector G. Thirkall, formerly of Hawera, but now of Patumahoe, South Auckland, the defendant being Wm. Andrew Officer, Piakau, Inglewood. The' plaintiffs alleged that certain statements attributed to Officer concerning the farm were false and fraudulent and were made with intent to deceive. On this account, therefore, they claimed £3300 as damages. Harold G. Thirkall, continuing his evidence of the previous day, said he heard Tom Hurrell ask Officer about the milk returns, but the latter said these would be no guide as the influenza epidemic was on and there were men milking the cows. Witness took over 39 cows, and bought five, a total of 44. During the first he was on the farm witness did not notice any grass coming on, whilst the cows were going down in condition although he was feeding them on hay and swedes and oaten sheaf. With the passing of the months the cows’ condition became poorer, and in August, after Officer and his family had left, witness had tl\e veterinary surgeon out to see a cow which had subsequently died. The cows were too weak to look for food themselves, and witness had to buy bran and cut chaff to ■ hand-feed the cows till they were strong enough to get up again. So poor were the cows that often they got down at night and he had to get them up on their feet in the morning. He had also had trouble with the cows during calving time. After witness took possession on June 30, witness asked Officer about the cows, and he said there were seven he did not know much about, as he had never milked them, but he could guarantee them all sound. Witness then had a suspicion that all the cows on the farm had not been carried , on the 96 acres all that year. I MONEY OWING ON FARM. ; Continuing, witness said he had put £6OO into the farm, he and the Hurrells giving a mortgage to Officer for £3500. an amount that was still owing on the farm. He had mentioned his suspicion’ to the Hurrells. stating that the farm was not any good. He had had trouble with the Hurrell Bros, because he had ! spent a time in Hawera. They alleged he was not doing justice to the farm. He had words with them, and. after that, told them nothing about the farm. Tn November the Hurrells had offers? him back the money he had put into the farm: this he had accepted. One day soon after he took possession he was feeline miserable and downhearted. and Officer had said to him: “Hector, if you were on this farm alone I’d srive you your money back, but Hurrell Bros, have money and they can help vou work it.” To Mr. Spratt: He had transferred, his -nfprest in the farm tn his uncles.

th? Hurrell Bros. He was still liable, however, for a mortgage of £3500. He did not know that the Hurrells had . taken over tb- responsibility so far as I he was con- --1. He did not think ; hi* uncle could make good to him any I loss caused by reason of the mortgage. ‘ Hp did not leave in a hurry after his [ “row” with the Hurrells: hp left about six weeks after. He was on the farm when Rogers took over parly in Novem- ’ her. What he saw on the farm during . this per : od was a continuation of what he had seen before, only his suspicions had been”confirmed. He did not tell th* Hurrells asain that the farm was no good. He was satisfied, however, that the farm had been misrepresented to him. On leaving the farm witness went to Feilding. Rata (Main Trunk)., and Patumahoe. Auckland, where he now was. Hp told the Hurrells la~t Thursday for the first time what he knew about the farm. BUYING THE FARM. He had been down to the farm twice, and or. the third occasion had agreed to buy the place. Previous to buying the farm ho had looked over farms at ■ Opunake and Eltham. When he first inspected the Mokoia farm it was with the idea of buying it for himself, aided ! by financial assistance from his father. He had obtained an option over the farm, and signed up on June 17. 1919. The Hurrell Bros, came into the busiI ness after the second visit. What hp ; had told the Hurrells about the farm on the one occasion he spoke about it to them the Hurrells did not believe Witness was not at that time quite cerj tain that he had been “had.” 1 His Honor: They placed no confidence in you then. What was your weakness in Hawera—drinking, or billiards, or | what? 1 Witness: Nothing of that sort, sir. Continuing, witness said he had taken I possession on July 1. and it was towards the end of September that he told Hurrells about his suspicions. He had never spoken to Officer about his suspicions or upbraided him about it. He had been on friendly terms with Officer up till the time the latter left. He had heard part of Mr. O'Dea’s opening remarks, but had not heard him say the grass was looking quite well when the farm was first inspected. He did not think that remark would be correct. Witness had inspected the dam. but j Officer had not shown or told him that I part of the dam had been washed away. I He had overheard that statement passed I between Officer and Campbell, but heard that it was fixed up and was then working better than ever. He based his knowledge of the capacity of the dam from what he himself knew of shearing and the amount of water required to drive a turbine. Re-examined by Mr. O’Dea. witness said that relations had heen somewhat strained between the Hurrells and hims°lf since he left the farm. Brian Lysaght. farmer, of Mokoia, said his people had at one time owned most the land around the Mokoia flat. His father had held 900 acres of freehold, and his'people had held Officers piece of land for about 25 years, also what fflxxn. adifining Offi-

cer’s. The land around there was of poor quality. It was an old pasture, being nearly all danthonia. Good land was distinct from poor land there on account of the fern growth, the better land growing taller fern. His people had done no dairying pn the place. The dam had been constructed and the turbine put in by his people for shearing purposes; the turbine was all riguL so long as the water was conserved, but the stream was not sufficient to work a turbine of the size installed.

The worst quality land was in the vicinity of the main road, which Officer’s and Quinn’s farms faced. From his knowledge of the land witness would say that Officer’s 96 acres might carry 30 dairy cows, but they would not milk very well. Even 25 would not milk as well as they would on better land. It cost a good deal in the way of manure to get a fair crop from the land; heavy top-dressing meant an extra rental in some way or other, and, on the danthonia, he did not think it would pay. It was hard to say if there was a worse f dairy farm in the district, but he would sav it was very indifferent land. As prices were to-day he would say Officer’s place was not worth buying for dairying. In 1919, with butter-fat at Is lid he would say the farm would be worth £35 an acre.

To Mr. Spratt: He did not know that at that time the Government valuation of the land at that time was within a few shillings of £54 10s. To a great extent the price of land was governed, not by its carrying capacity, but by what it could be turned over at. He agreed that it was more or less a gamble as to whether the price of butterfat would keep up. He knew that quite a number of farmers had “fallen in” by buying land down in that district. VALUE OF THE LAND. Cecil Hawken, farmer, of Mokoia, and chairman of the Mells Dairy Company said he had been farming at Mokoia for about 16 years. The area he farmed was 1500 acres and he carried on both dairying and general farming. He had found there- was a big difference in the high-level and the low-level land snd would say that one acre on top was equal to 2£ acres below. Allowing for the usual horses, bull, etc., he would say Officer’s farm of 96 acres would carry about 28 cows. He would not like to say how much the land was worth in 1919 without working it out. He did not think Officer’s farm much good for dairying purposes; the pasture was no good, but, as regards buildings and nearness to the factory, it would be considered an attractive farm. He did not think creeping the farm would give back the returns put into it. Top-dress-ing would probably improve farm, but it was doubtful if it would pay for the expenditure. November and December were the flush months, probably j October for the better land. From I figures quoted he would say at that I period Officer was milking 33 average i cows.

Allan Good, farmer, Hawera, said he did a good deal of land valuing. He had valued Officer’s land in 1919 on behalf of the Commissioner of Crown Lands. His valuation was £52 or £52 10s on | that occasion. The place had been offer;ed to returned soldiers at. he thought, j from £BO to £B5. but on his report it I was turned down. The place to-day was 1 much as it was in 1919. excepting -for a small portion which had since been laid down in grass. With this exception the rest of the farm was in a very bad state, especially for dairying purposes. His experience was that danthonia Was a worthless grass on good land, though it had some uses in poor back country. It did not spread so rapidly on good land, though it would grow anywhere. He thought a fair carrying capacity for the farm would be 28 to 30 cows. To be successfully cropped a good deal of manure would be needed. If done thoroughly the expense of cropping Would probably pay. Last year, from a dairying point of view, was very good on the whole. It would be waste to topdress pasture of that description; the pasture should first be renewed in a mixture of rye. cocksfoot and clover, which were the best grasses for that district. He estimated the farm’s present-day value at between £3O and £32 an acre.

To Mr. Spratt: He did not know that he was known as a conservative valuer. Generally his valuations in 1919 were lower than the majority of farms were changing hands at that time. Prices were slightly higher in 1920. He knew that the Hawken estkte had been sold at auction in 1920 nt from £125 to £l4O. and that since reduction had been made to £BO without any charges of fraudulent representations being made. THE FARM’S CAPACITY. William Henry Rogers, farmer, of Mokoia. said he was at present in what had been Officer’s farm. He took over the farm on November 1. 1919. paying £B6 an acre. He took over 40 cows from Hurrell Bros, and Thirkall, the cows being then in low condition. He milked the 40 cows till April, when he “dried” some and sold them, wintering 35. Their condition during the winter was poor. He had manured with lime and other manures, putting lime on six paddocks, mostly with crops. That year he cropped about six or six and a-half acres of swed&s and four of soft turnips, whilst there were already five acres in oats and two in lucerne. He had also nine or ten acres of meadow hay. He milked 34 cows the succeeding season, and individually, they were better than the previous year, the 34 returning about as much as the 40 of the previous year. That year he cropped about eleven acres of oats and about five and a-half of swedes and soft turnips. He wintered 30 cows during the second winter he was on the farm, but they did not come through the winter well. He milked 35 cows last season, but that number was too many for the farm. However, he had paid a big price for the place, he had interest to pay and he had hoped that the land would have turned out better. He could hardly believe the land was as poor as it had proved to be. as South Taranaki had a name for being good growing country. The mortgage on the property was not worth much to-day. Two months or so ago Officer said he would reduce his mortgage £. for £ with the Hurrell Bros. He expected to milk 28 or 29 cows this year, but even this was more than he ought. He. however, was in such a hopeless position that he wanted to milk every cow he could. The last season had been an excellent one with a good winter for stock, but his cows were only in fair condition, whilst some were poor. His test at the factory was below the average test. His cows were of no special breed and of average glass.

The dam and turbine did not work the whole year round; it had never been satisfactory to anyone for milking cows, as the water ran very low at some rimes. He would say the fair carrying capacity of the farm was 25 or 26 cows; he estimated that if he had paid' £BO an acre in 1919 he could just about have pulled through with butter fat at Is lid, provided the cows and grass were good. On resuming after lunch the witness Rogers thought it partly the fault of the cows that he did not get the result he expected. He had a recollection of Officer saying some of jthe cows should have been culled out long ago. Thos. John Hurrell, coach-builder, of Hawera, said he was in partnership with his brother George. The first he heard of the farm was from Mr. Campbell speaking in glowing terms of the farm. Eably in June Thirkall came to Taranaki from Wellington, looking for a farm, and with him witness went to see two farms near Eltham. but Thirkall was not satisfied with them. It was then that Campbell was met. On the following day Campbell, Thirkall, and witness went to Hawera, and the five of them went to see the farm. On the way down Stannard (agent) spoke to witness of all the advantages of the farm, saying it would carry 45 cows and pointing out that the turbine would save benzine, and so on. On arrival at the farm Officer, who knew the party were coming, met them. He had two or three turnips in his hands, and holding one fine specimen up he said, “This is what the farm will produce.” The party, in company with Officer, inspected all the paddocks, the turbine and dam. Officer saying this was a splendid asset to the would milk the cows all the year round. The cows Were inspected and looked in good condition. He could not candidly say that he thought the grass looked anything great. It was agreed to put in £6OO each, making £lBOO capital, if it was decided to take the place.

FINANCES OF DEAL. Later witness asked Officer for his milk returns, but Officer said, “They will •be no use to you as we had the flu and the returns will be no guide to you.” Officer agreed that the farm would carry 45 cows and 50, without a doubt, if the farm was properly manured. . It was then decided to take the place. On returning to Hawera, Cowan’s office was visited, where he paid a deposit of £250 and signed up. Possession was to be taken on July 1. The farm was taken over subject to the first mortgage of £4OOO *being taken over. Officer had since reduced this mortgage to £3500. An arrangement was made, however, whereby the liability was not really altered. Thirkall never gave any indication to witness that the farm was a poor place. He was not too satisfied with Thirkall’s management: after he had been on the place a month there so many land agents buzzing around and Thirkall was reminded that the place was not bought for a speculation. As a matter of fact they blamed Thirkall for everything, but now they thought that their opinions were not justified, as the fault lay with the farm itself. After the death of Thirkall’s father witness and his brother agreed to buy Thirkall out, paying him back exactly the amount he had put into the farm, viz., £7OO. ’ Later Rogers was brought along by Mr. Catchpole (land agent for the N.Z. Loan and Mercantile) and witness and his brother agreed to sell at £B6 per acre to cover expenses, incurred in commission charges. J stamp duty, loss of cows, money expended in cows, poor milk returns, manure (and legal expenses. Rogers paid up his 1 interest for the first twelve months, but six months later, in May. 1921. Rogers said he was afraid he was going back. Up to that time witness was not getting the milk cheques, as he thought he was finished with the farm. Rogers had put down £9OO cash for the farm and stock. The balance of £1342 was owing, for which the mortgage was obtained and a chattels security taken over the 40 head of stock sold. In the last three years £l4OO had been lost in working the farm. This loss was going on all the time. The total amount of the interest in the property held by •witness and his brother was £3500. During the first year the outgoings on the farm were £958 15s lOd. his incomings for that year being £516 15s Bd. a loss of £442 0s 2d. The 1920-21 outgoings were £9Bl 14s lid and the incomings £603 14s lid. a loss of £377 19s 2d. Outgoings for 1921-22 were £778 16s lOd and incomings £467 6s 4d, a loss of £3ll 10s 6d. The three years’ loss was £ll3l 9s lOd. The difference between this was accounted for by an advance to Rogers of £3OO. which was I against him on their books. Rogers’ ! mortgage to witness was of no value ■ and he and his brother were prepared Ito throw it in.

! Mr. O’Dea intimated that this closed j his case, and the Court adjourned till 10 o’clock this morning.