A BALL ROAD FARM.

Taranaki Daily News, 31 August 1922, Page 6

A BALL ROAD FARM.

ALLEGED MISREPRESENTATION. CONCLUSION OF THE EVIDENCE. The Supreme Court continued its sitting at New Plymouth yesterday, wiien the hearing was resumed of the claim’ brought by Edward Thomas against William H. McDonald for £2837 as damages for alleged misrepresentation in the sale of a farm at Ball Road. Samuel Blake, farmer, Hawera, gave evidence concerning the farm, which he had known for a great many years. He used to buy and sell McDonald’s stock for him. and consequently took a great deal of interest in the stocking of the place. He had a standing order from McDonald for seven years to keep the herd up to 75 cows, as well as the usual other stock of such a farm. McDonald returned in labor the advice witness gave. Culling out was done at the end of the season, and the new cows would be brought in at the end of June or the middle of July. Witness considered the capacity of the place as 7'5 cows. In the eighth .year of McDonald’s residence on the farm he bought the stock himself, reducing the number because his boy was ■going to the war as soon as he was old enough. COWS ON THE “SANDHILLS.” Continuing, witness considered that the “sand hills” paddock' was not in such a good condition as when McDonald had it. At the time McDonald sold it, it was very valuable for winter feeding owing to the difficulty of procuring labor. If a herd of 75 cows were placed in that paddock for twp months continuously they would eat everything clean off. As the cows dried off he would put them on the “sand hills” until they had eaten the grass growing between the clumps of marram. Witness had persuaded McI Donald not to take less than £lOO per I acre when he contemplated selling out, owing to his own and his wife’s health. At the peak of the boom the place would have been worth £l5O per acre. To Mr. Taylor: Valuing the land as it was in 1919,‘he would Say that the relative values were £lOO per acre for the good land and £6O per acre for - the “sand hills” paddock. A good herd of cows should yield 2501bs of butter fat

Mr. Taylor produced the returns during McDonald’s tenure of the farm, showing that his consecutive returns for seven vears were as follows: —191, 212. 170, 201, 169, 155 and 4851b5, an average of 183.51bs for the period. Thomas’ returns for his three years W’ere 209, 206 and 2801bs respectively from a reduced number of cows. Witness’ comment on this was that McDonald would have got the same had he had a good. herd. Continuing, witness said he would have given advice as to the treatment of the “sand hills” paddock had he been asked.

In answer to Mr. Spratt, witness stated that last year’s returns were about a fourth more all round. In, the third year of Mr. McDonald’s tenure he had had udder trouble while the cows were mixed; they were not even grade cows.

William George Brooks, Patea, who had worked for McDonald for the five years preceding the sale, said that they milked between 75 and 78 cows, with the exception of the last year, when 63 or 64 were milked. The reduction was caused by the prospect of witness going into camp, the scarcity of labor, and the state of health of Mr. and Mrs. McDonald. When witness left at the end of May. 1919, the “sand hills” paddock was covered with marram and other grasses. That paddock was mostly used in June and July between the drying off of the cows and their coming in again. Witness had had to search for three days to find a calf among the marram grass. Ernest Joseph Booth, Kakaramea, also gave evidence. EVIDENCE BY DEFENDANT. The defendant, William H. McDonald,' then gave evidence concerning the visits of Thomas to the farm. Witness remarked to plaintiff, when he came over the farm to him, that he had seen the greater part of the place, as he had come over and then added: “There is a part I would like you to see; the rest will speak for itself. He then took plaintiff out on the “sand hills” paddock, and walked through it, discussing various matters pertaining to the farm. He told Thomas that he had discovered a Californian thistle in the paddock, and had had it dug out. They could see all the boundaries of the paddock frorti where they were standing. He informed the plaintiff that he used the paddock for Wintering only, refraining from putting cows in it when they were in milk. He also told Thomas that he fed hay in the paddock, and that there were one or two bare patches which he intended to cover before putting the cows in for the winter. Witness also repeated to Thomas a conversation he had one time as to the area of the land, his estimate being about thirteen acres, but remarked: “Mind'you, it has never been measured, ana you will have to use your own judgment.” Turning to another paddock. Thomas asked him what he considered to be its area, and on witness replying “About nine acres,” he had remarked: “Well, if that is nine acres, there must be more in this sand.” On the subject of capacity, he told Thomas that he had milked 75 cows. One year he had got’up to about SO. but he* thought this ton big a risk. At the time he had reduced to°6s owing to the fact that his boy had enlisted. These statements were true, and when Thomas asked him about returns. he remarked quite candidly that Shields had them, and he could go and see them any time he wanted to. Replying to a question from Thomas as .to whether he could say what was his biggest yield of milk in any one day. he said that, from memory, it was about 2300 or 2400. It was not true to say he shepherded plaintiff over the farm. His sole reason for selling was the health of his wife and himself. He put the place on the market at £95 per acre, but. on Blake’s advice, raised it to £lOO per acre. Thomas; did not haggle over the price, and witness could see he was very keen on the farm.' although nothing definite was said that day as to whether he was actually going to purchase. McDonald identified an authority to the Farmers’ Co-op., Hawera, to sell the property. but he declared their advertisement contained additional statements he had not made. Shields had had no authority from him to sell the place, nor had he told him that it would carry .80 to 90 rows. The first he had heard of a charge of fraudulent misrepresentation was a letter from his

lawyer intimating that he had received such a complaint from plaintiff’s solicitor. He) had met Thomas previously, when he ha'd “gone off the handle” about everything and had then said that he (McDonald) had not milked 75 cows on the farm and that he could prove it. Witness offered to wager £5O that he had done so, and if Thomas was correct he could take the money, and, if wrong, he would pay Thomas’s money to the hospital. Plaintiff had then switched round and complained that, he had been charged interest for 14 days more than he should have been.

To Mr. Taylor: He had never heard from any source that Thomas had said he had been “let. down” in purchasing the farm. He knew what the consequences would be if the bare patches of sand were allowed to spread, and warned Thomas about it on his first visit, in addition to taking him over to where patches had been covered. He also told him how and when he grazed the paddock, and Thomas should certainly have understood that he would not be able to graze it for six months in the year. When discussing carrying capacity there had been no mention of horses. He could not recollect Thomas saying he had onlythree horses. He had not worried about his returns, because he was making a fair living and was paying off his,mortgage and interest, thus considering he was doing all right. ’ v

This concluded the evidence. Counsel for the plaintiff then made application to call evidence to rebut certain statements made by the defence, but His Honour considered that the questions raised had already been dealt with. Counsel then addressed the jury, but owing to the lateness of the hour. His Honour said he would reserve his summing up till nine o’clock this morning.