SALE OF FURNITURE ALONG WITH HOUSE

Chronicle (Levin), 23 July 1946, Page 8

SALE OF FURNITURE ALONG WITH HOUSE

— Press ' Associution j

schfme to defeat law alleged

Pv Teleqmvh-

AUCKLAND, July 22. . j Alleged breach.es of the Sevvicemeii 's j Settleinent and Land Saies Act, 1943,! were denied by Mr. IJenrv wlio appear-j ed for Frederick George Thomas Vhit-j field, before M r. J. 11. Luxford, S.M. Defendaut was charged that cv. oi about July 25, 1945, he entered into an arrangeinei t with \'iolet Vivienne Sophia Blow. whicli was imronsistent with an application made under the Act as nmended by the Land Saies Aniendment Act. 1944. An alternate charge was that as imrchaser of a freeliold propeitv " at Sadgrove Terrace, Mount Albert, from Mrs. Blow, he was a party to a schenie inconsistent with part 3 of the Act and its amendments, by agreeing to buy furniture valued at i.i()() for tlie sun of £ 1 1 »(), m eider that the property could be purchased at £4590 in the evout of the Land Saies Court assessing the property at a lesser \ alue. Detective Trethewey said the charges were alternative and convietion was sought only on oue. He said Mrs. Blow was the ownor of a property whicli was advertised for sa.le on July 21, 1945. Defendaut. who had arrived from Kug land 011 July 9, answered the advertise nient. In written explanations, oue of wliich, made before Delectivo-Sergeanl Fell, was unsigned, and anolher made before his solicitor, defendaut said he met iIiol*. \'(*iidor who said ihe price of the property was £450(1. Defendaut agreed to purchase the pro]ierty and he was informed there would be two separate (iealings, oue of £3100 for tlie house and oue of £1100 for some funii ture wliich was the property of the vendor's husband. Defendaut paid for ihe .furniture whieh was valued at not mere thuu £100, ;uul 011 tlie same day a deposit of £290 was ]>aid on tlie house. ( >u July 31, 1945, an application for ihe sale oi' tlie property from .Mrs. Blow to defendaut uas lodged with tlie Land Saies Court at Auckland. Cousenl in the sale of the house I'or £3190 was granted and defendaut paid £32X0 12s 3d, .tliat suin being the balance of Ihe jmrchase nioney of Ihe house and up port ioiiineiil s. Deleclive Trethewey said almost all of Mrs. Blow's tuviii lure, wliich was insured i'or £7o9, was removed lo Christchurch before Ihe property uas laken o\'er by del'endant. 11 was suluiiilled tliat the cvidence would diselose tliat defeiidant was a part.v to a schenie whereby, by paving £109 i'or tlie furniture, he was able lo purchase the property wliich could not. have been purchased bv a person prepared lo abide by tlie Servicemeir s Settlenient and Land Saies Act. Details of interviews with defeiidant were giveli by Detect ive-Sergmiut Fell. Whitiield had stated tliat he liad arrived from Lngland and was anxious to seeure a home i'or liis family iiud, liaving been in the couutry three weeks, knew nothiiig of ihe Land Saies Act. ('ross examined bv M». H'-nry, witness said there. was jto reference to l'ufniture in tlie application of consent of tlie Land Saies '('ouit. No valuation liad been ol-iained bv ihe [inrchaser. Mr. Henry said the in.format ions were criminal lnatters and ftverv elemeni had to be proved. Tlier.» u*as 110 evidence to prove that his clitvil was aware of tlie Land Saies Act o.c that it was discussed. There was also no evidence tlial defendaut had any kir>w. ledge tliat an application was bebtig made at tlie time wlien he liecame ku [larty to the transactiin, and it niusf be shown tliat whai was done was inconsistent with the application to be made. He said tlie evidem-e fell sliort of proof of the charges ;ts laid and there was insutfii'icnt proof' to lix an\ guilt on his client. i Keinaikiiig tliat there were questiqns , of law and construction tq l.-e gone into, tlie Magistrate reserved his 'decision.