A LAND TRANSACTION.

Wairarapa Age, Volume XXXII, Issue 10591, 25 March 1912, Page 3

A LAND TRANSACTION.

1 HOOD V. HOLE. Tin; case in which Francis Hood, , i'tiruii'r, of Mastmun, claimed from Robert Harry Ho!e, livery stab!-? keeper, of ilaiiterton, ])0::..c.-:c:ou cf a fa tun ut the Upper Plain, wtu emit:;.• ucd ia the h>npromo Court on Saturday morning. After hearing witno&seß for the plaintiff, His .Honor- adjourned the 4'urther hearing to Wellington, for a date to be fixed. The plaintiff, in continuing li-is evidence, "slated that before he left for England he was fanning all the land except ten acres, which was leased to Jacob Campion for £1 per acre, lie did not know thai t'he property had been so id until he arrived in J\lu:>terton on November his son havtno- told him that Anketell had d::;prwed of the hind to defendant. On the following .Monday plaintiff taw defendant, and told -linn that no one had authority a) sell the 'farm on the terms which it had been. sold. Do- ! fondant said that he did not want to j buy ,1 ho farm, as lie had not the mon- i ey, hut that Ankecell kept "agitating to him," finally asking him how. much money he could put down. Be-J fendant replied, "£400," and Anko-1 .tell said lie could get it for that J amount. Defendant expressed sur- j prise at being able to obtain the farm j for tho sum mentioned. Anketell ap- j peared anxious for the defendant to < take posses-sion. Defendant said that: when asked, at -Air Gawith's office for 1 his authority, to Fell the property in plaintiff's .absence, Ankotoll re-plied, "It's all right. I've got the authority at home, and Mr Hood lias a copy of, it." .Subsequently defendant an<l j plaintiff spoke to Anketell, who said | in reply to a question to plaintiff that j the latter was lying if he said that he (Anketell) had no authority to sell, j Plaintiff then shook Anketell, and I the latter retreated into his garden. { Plain,tiff made two offers to'defend-j ' ant in, order to save Court proceed- ; ings, but the latter rejected both. \ John Fra-ser, ' valuer - and estate ] agent, of Master ton, .said that lie in- j spected the crops on the plaintiff's 1 property, there being 63 acres of oatp, 4 acres of hay, and 9 acres of peas. The property . was worth .£4B per acre. He would not consider it dear " at that price. He believed that a | neighbour adjoining (a- .Mr Welch) j who had 17 acres, could /™t about £7O or £BO per acre for his land. It was slightly better land than plaintiff's. I

George Hood, son of plaintiff, said lie did not receive any authority from' ■his .father to sell the property. On one night- in August he met Anketell, Who asked him what the price would be likely for the farm, as he had a prospective buyer. Witness replied that he did not know the price, and that the property was in the hands of one of the agents in Masterton. "Witness said that he ithought the price was' £45 per acre. Next day witness ascertained from the agent that the price was £4B. He then met defendant and Anketell in the street, the latter introducing defendant as ,a (buyer. Defendant would not give £4B, and offered £46 and then £47. Witness decided to accept, the latter price. Defendant said he could put £4OO down, Anketell remarking that that was the amount, witness' father had agreed upon as a deposit." Subsequently they went to Mr Gawith's office in connection with the sale, defendant- putting -down a deposit of £2OO He did not remember any document being signed on that occasion. On October 2nd tho defendant, Anketell and witness again visited Gawith's office, when the agreement was signed.