HURRELL v. OFFICER.

Taranaki Daily News, 26 August 1922, Page 7

HURRELL v. OFFICER.

the mokoia farm sale. evidence for the defence CASE CONCLUDES TO-DAY. The hearing of the claim, Hurrell and others versus Officer, for £3-300 damages for alleged misrepresentation in the sale or a farm at Mokoia, was continued at the Supreme Court, New Plymouth, yesterday, the whole day being taken in hearing evidence for the defence. Edward James Ible, Inglewood, said that as a land agent he had received instructions from Officer in 1918 to secure for him a property which could be .more easily handled than his run at Tarata. Witness had received advice of the Mokoia property, and had inspected it, subsequently setting out particulars of the farm in a letter to Officer. Witness estimated that it would carry from 40 to 45 cows, and he set this out, with other details, in a letter produced. In answer to Mr. O’Dea, witness said he had made a good inspection of the farm. He knew danthonia, but would not say that he had seen the quantity 1 on the place as -stated by other- witnesses.

Joseph Henry Bowater, land agent, Wansranui, also gave evidence concerning his visits to Officers farm at Mokoia with clients, the second of whom had signed an agreement to purchase at £BO an acre, but was forestalled by the plaintiffs, who had obtained an option from defendants. Witness, however, took his client around the farm, and, in company with Officer, visited the dam, where defendant pointed out that it had been broken away, and in consequence he had not had sufficient water to drive his machines in the summer. In response to his client’s question as to whether it would be wise to bring his own 45 cows in the event of his securing the place, Officer had stated that he himself had never got above 35, and he advised witness’ client to cull out five of his worst ones and start with forty. The place was rather poor in places, Officer had added.

In cross-examination, witness eaid that he knew danthonia, and in his judgment there was only a strip about 15 chains wide on the farm; the land on either side was quite good. Other witnesses who said that three-quarters of the farm was under danthonia were quite wrong. CONDITION OF THE STOCK. James Officer, son of the defendant, said tha,t when he was on special leave from camp the stock on the farm at Mokbia was 38 cows, 4 eighteen-months-old heifers, one bull, 8 horses, and 16 calves, the calves being sold to Walsh. The stock was in good condition when the sale was made to Thirkall. To Mr. O’Dea: He could not deny Thirkall’s statement that the cows had died of starvation, and while he knew that there was danthonia on the place, he did not think he was called on to tell Thirkall of it. William Cowan, land agent, Hawera, who had been called by the plaintiffs, was recalled by the defence in refutation of some statements made by Thirkall as to where witness kept his authorities to sell, and denied that he was in the office when that witness had called a second time, or that he had told him that he, Cowan, had valued the farm a few years before at £5O per acre. Witness further denied to Mr. O’Dea that he had known the place for years as "Poverty Flat.” The first time he had heard the expression was in the Court. Witness considered that the land was relatively poor, and that it was danthonia land. lie had not mentioned this fact to the parties.

Charles Robert Stannard, Hawera, land agent, salesman for Cowan in 1919. 1 said he met Thirkall through thq latter’s uncle, who had introduced him as a prospective buyer of a farm property. When Officer’s farm came on the books he took Thirkall out to see it, having first given him brief particulars over the telephone. Officer took them over the farm, and afterwards gave witness first refusal of it. Witness then related his next visit in company with Campbell and Thirkall, when the former appeared to be pleased with the place, and commented on the good condition of the cows. That visit was made on a Sunday, and on the following Tuesday witness had received advice that the Hurrells were prepared to assist Thirkall into the 1 place, and desired to inspect it. Accordingly the Hurrells, Camnbell, Thirkall and witness went out in Hurrell’s car to the farm. Witness had represented that the farm would carry 45 cows, but had not constantly repeated the statement. He had not told Thirkall that it was one of the best farms in the whole district. To Mr. O’Dea: He did not know it was a danthonia farm, and did not hear Officer mention the fact. Robert McKay, Hawera, related the negotiations that he and his partner had entered into regarding the purchase in 1918 of Officer’s and the adjoining farm. Witness and his partner had intended to run the two places as one farm and had intended to milk about SO or 90 cows. They were endeavoring to secure the • places under the Discharged Soldiers’ Settlement Act, but the report of the < government inspector was against the place. Officer had told him that the dam would not carry them through the slimmer Witness had estimated the carrying capacity of the place himself. In answer to Mr. O’Dea witness said he had had no experience of danthonia, but he had it on the farm. He had not taken much notice of it, however.

DEFENDANT’S EVIDENCE. The defendant, William Andrew Officer, was then put in the box, and related the events leading up to his acquisition of the Mokoia property. He had not been told that 25 acres of Miss Lysaght’s farm would be required in order to"run 45 cows. He entered into possession in November and the lease of Miss Lysaght’s place expired the following January and had not been renewed. Prior to going to Mokoia he had no experience of dairying. He took over 38 cows, 4 heifers, one bull, 16 weaners, 4 homes and 8 pigs, which were on the farm and Miss Lysaght’s place. In addition Smith had three saddle horses on the place, but these were not taken over. Defendant said he brought four horses and a Shetland pony with him from Tarata and then gave details of his pur chases of stock and his sales Between November, 1918, and the following June he bought nine cows and four heifers, the latter being sent to his other farm at Norfolk Road, while he had disposed of the bull. 3 cows, one horse and 16 weaners. five of the remaining horses bei ing sent to Norfolk Road. When he '•old to Thirkall there were on the place

41 cows, 4 24 year heifers, and 3 horsey He had farmed, the land-and had planted lucerne, for which Smith had prepared a x piece of land. He followed the instructions of the Government instructor and had left the first cutting of the lucerne on the ground, feeding two other cuttings to the cows. The cows on the place varied from three to over 20 years old and had he not made up his mind to sell the farm, he would have'had a clearing sale and bought pedigree Jersey cows. He had not been-! able to take hay off Miss Lysaght’s place, so he had turned his cows into it and they had gone dry. He had sihee learned that it did not do to turn cows into one paddock; it was better to move them from, paddock to .paddock. He had no reason, to doubt Ible’s J :>r that the. place., would carry 45 cow. Thirkall wasin r correct in saying that he . had tpid him that he had milked 45 cows. Reck suing five of his.horses as each equal. $p two-, cows hi’s-r-stcck ’figures would out’at 55 coxys and three horses, and. these he grazed .for three months on. and Mis§\i;yXaght’s place and for fohr. and a. half ' months on his' farm.; only. The witnesses, for ; the plaintiff, wljpjn li,e . knew, had “cracked up.” the Mokoia district' wh'eq he'was there and had stated that at that time it was worth £lOO per acre. ; He had found if” easy enough to keep danthonia down. ' ’ • Continuing, witness said-Jib had' told Thirkall amd Campbell tfiht the data would go dry. Had he tried to make' out otherwise he would have been the laughing stock of the district. The witness intended to supplement the dam from the windmill and had pipes there for the purpose. These pipes he left for Thirkall when he sold out and it was only a matter of a plumber to fit them. A few weeks after the sale witness walked round the farm with Thirkall and drew his attention to the fact that the cows were going off rapidly. Thirkall explained the: he had a boy: from Wellington and he supposed the lad was not giving them enough feed. Witness strongly .advised him to look after the feeding himself.

The witness went on to give details of various financial dealings and the mortgages on the place. The gorse was allowed to grow on the farm after he left and he had had to instruct his solicitors to press to have it cut. Up to the time of receiving the letter from Messrs. O’Dea and Bayley charging him with fraudulent misrepresentation his relations with the Hurrells had been most amicable. That letter was 'the first he had heard of fraud.

Cross-examined by Mr. O’Dea. witness said he never let the. danthonia go to seed: the stock kept it down. There had been no trouble with Smith over the Tarata nropc-rty. Subsequently, however, he bought Smith out as he had go’f behind in hie interest on a mortgage.and could not meet it. He denied saying that the place would carry 50 or 55 cows if the place were manured, while he had not been asked for the milk returns until about three weeks after Thirkall had taken possession. This was the last witness in the case, and the Court adjourned until 9 o’clock this morning, when counsel will address the jury and His Hohor will sum up