House Buyer Fails In Appeal Case

Chronicle (Levin), 5 December 1949, Page 5

House Buyer Fails In Appeal Case

WELLINGTON, Dec. 3. An appeai by the pureh&sef of a house who sought repayment of money in excess of the Land Saies Court price paid by him to the vendor has bee,n dismigsed by Mr. Justice Hay in a S" preme Court judgment. The appeai was agaiust a decision by IMr. T. E. Maunsell, S.M., that the purchaser was, in the cireumstanees, not entitled to recover the sum sought. The appellant was Graham GifPor l Tait, whose liaother had entered into an agreement to purchase a house at £2500 or the Land Saies Court price, staid the judgment. This price had been fixed at £1950, but t'he vendor had intimated that he was not prepared to complete the transaction at- less than £2300. "Negotiations resulted in an illegal pavment of £250 being made by the appellant. Subsequently the appellant had brought ,the matter to the notice of the police, and the vendor had been convicted and lined £270, The appellant had attended the henring and given evidence- — indeed, he was the principal witnesa for the proseeution. On application- the Magistrate had issued a certificate to.tbe appellant, and a substantive application had been made by him for recovery of the illegal payment. The Magistrate had adhered to views prevjouslv expressed by himself to the effect that an intention should not be assigned to the Legislature to hold out a bribe to an aecomplice to procure a eonvietion.

Counsel for the appellant, said his Honour, had submitted argument on the ' nature of the certificate given by the Magistrate and the true meaning of the word i'-''require, ' ' as used in the uServicemen's Settlement and Land Saies Amendment Act, 1946. The relevant seetions of this Act, counsel had said, were designed as one means of compelling compliance with the ju'incipul Act, and if the Magistrate 's hderprej tation were. adopted, it would seldom, : if ever, be possible to obtain a eon- [ viction. Mlnd of the Legislature His Honour agreed with the Magistrate that what the Legislature had in mind was the type of case where the authorities had some reason to suspect, from information received, that an ' offence had been committed, and the purehaser was required to give evidence. The situation was entirelv diffe.rent where, as in the present case, the purehaser (or the person acting on behalf of the purehaser) instigated the pfosecution and made himself a williifg witness, albeit under subpoena. j "The learned Magistrate stated that , in his opinion the appellant made the | illegal payment, hoping that by rej porting the matter he would sueceed in getting his money baek, '■ 1 continued his Honour. "The appellant said, in effect, that he would not have reported the matteT but for the faet that after taking possession of the house he found it to contain eonsiderable traces of borer. 1 The appellant, added his Honour, | had come forward voluntarily and disclosed the facts of an illegal transaction to which he was a party, thereby expecting to reeeive immunity from prosecution, and to establish a ground for elaiming a refund. The appeai was accordingly dismissed.