ECHO OF FURNITURE AND HOUSE DEAL

Chronicle (Levin), 28 August 1946, Page 3

ECHO OF FURNITURE AND HOUSE DEAL

-Press Ansnr.iatism

COURT 1IEARS AN APPEAL

By Telearavh—

AUCKLAND, Auguat 27. The decisiou oi' Mr. J.' 11. Luxford, in iining a mun. £100 for alleged evaaion of the Land fcjaiea Act in the - purcha.se of Iiouslj. propcrty, was eliallenge.d in an appoal, brqught before Mr. Ju.stiee'CaJl.'Wi. > A[>p;eliant' was Fredorick George Thomas VYhiUield whqi was convicted ou J u 1 y 25 of having entered into an arrangements with Mrs. Violet } ivienne Dlow, that was intended to be inconsistent with an appJicutjon made undor the provisiona of the Servicemen's ScttJefncnt aiid Land Saies Act and its aiuendmonts. Appellant claimed that the klagistrate 's decision was eroneous in t'aet and in law, that it was against tlie weight of evideuce and that the tine was excessive. Opposing the appoal on behalf of the Crown, Mr. Q. S. li.' .'Mereditk said Whitlield had visited Mrs. I31o\v in rosponse to an advertisement and Mrs. 131ow told him the price of the property was £-1500. U hittield agreed to purcliase at that price and Mrs. Blow toid him there would be separate trnnsactions of £3400 for the house and laud and £1100 for the furnituro which beionged to hcr husbaad. She stipulated that the furniture must be bought lirst. An agreement for the sale and purchase of Mrs. Blow 's property al Mount Albert at £3400, was drawn'up in a solicitor's oliice and all the relovant documents were sigued including a declaration that there were 110 other arrangements or agreements ussociated with the transaction. There was u considerabie quantity of furnituro in the house when it was sold but when Whitiield got posseasiou only a vcry small proportiou of it remained. By far the greater part of it had been removed by Mr. Blow to Christchurch where he was going to live with his wife. Detective W. K. Fell produced a stalouient Whitiield had giveu him in which he said he valued the furniture he got by payjnent of £1 100 at about £100. 11c uas quite wiiling to pay £1500 for the house. 11 o had only been a fortnight in New Zealand at the timo. Mr. Henry, for appellant, submitted that the intcntion alleged against appelJant must be provcd to exist in his mind at the time the arrangement was entered into. Counscl claimed that there was either complete inadvertence on the part of appellant or complete ignoranco of the application to be made. The faet that lie was eager to pay the money showed hc had no evil intentions. In dismissing tho appeal His Honour said there was no doubt that the parties intended the two component parts of the deul to be dependent on each other. klrs. Blow was determined that if she d'd not get £4500, Whitiield was not to have the house. Whitiield, in order to go through M'itli the deal. had to take the furniture. Ilis llonour held that appellant was in u position to luiow what he was doing when he signed the documents in the solicitor's office. "Whitiield is much less to be blamed tlian the vendor, said His Honour. "I cau understand the public resenting the i'augs of the law centring on the purchaser and J agree etliically that the vendur is more guilty. However, it' is the duty of the courts to deal with the people b rough t before tiiem and there may be ditiiculties to explain why otliers are not treated in the same way. .Lt does not foilow that this case is the end of proceedings to which the occurrence referred' to, may give xise. ; '