Tho case was adjourned to January 9,1867. Mitchell v. Middleton.—Mr Garrick for tho plaintiff and Mr Cottrell for defendant. Claim of £SO, alleged to have been obtained from plaintiff by fraudulent representations. Mr Garrick applied to have tho case adjourned, but the application was overruled. E. Mitchell said that defendant had called on him, and said that he had a piece of land for sale on tho Ashburton, and it was agreed that he (wit ness) should sell it. He received written instruc tions how to prooeed .with the salo, and advertised it in the Press; but to could not obtain a pur chaser. The first price fixed upon jt was £SO, which was afterwards raised to £75. Thinking it a good investment, he offered £6O for it himsolf; the offer was accepted, and he gave a bill for the amount. It had been represented to him by de fendant to be an island, and to be first-class cattle country; but he found it to be river bed, and two thirds of it were shingle, with here and there a tussock. Ten or twelve cows might be kept on it, but defendant had told him it would carry 200 head of cattle. Defendant did not say the land was almost valueless unless the holder purchased some freehold land alongside. It would take a regiment _of soldiers to keep a hundred head of cattle on it, and thin they would Btarve. He met the defendant afterwards, and requested back his bill, on tho ground that the land had not been fairly described, and that it was valueless; but defendant refused to give it up. Albert Saunders deposed that he lived near the Ashburton, and knew the place called "The Island " there. It was not an island, but only a few spits of sand. It was not good cattle ground, and he should say it was of no value. He had lived in that neighbourhood six years. Mr Tur ton held " The Islands " formerly, and had 600 sheep on it for a short time; but they would soon have starved; Turton had no cattle on it. His cattle were on Moore's run.
