"FICTITIOUS VALUATION"

Dominion, Volume 8, Issue 2418, 25 March 1915, Page 7

"FICTITIOUS VALUATION"

MAGISTRATE'S STRONG REMARKS. (By Telegraph.—Press Association.) Auckland, March 24. The Magistrate (Mr. Kettle) made some very strong comments to-day, in a ease in which' a land agent, Andrew M'Neil, proceeded against a farmer, George Farmer, for commission alleged to be due in respect to exchange of land. It was stated in evidence that the farmer put his property into M'Neil's hands for sale at not less than £25 per' acre, but M'Neil was unable to effect a sale. He then found another landowner willing to exchange, whose farm was reputed to be worth £7 10s. per acre. Tho two landowners agreed that for the purposes of exchange their land should be valued at £35 and £9 10s. respectively, and an agreement was ratified accordingly. M'Neil, however, claimed his 2$ per cent, commission from Farmer at the price of £35 per acre, and Farmer refused to pay this, and wanted to_ pay on the basis of £25 per acre. Neither litigant could satisfactorily comply with tho Magistrate's request for an explanation of the increased values,. and tho latter said that it was a case of "fictitious valuation." Then he proceeded: "What purpose is it put up for excepting for swindling someone. It is high time this kind of thing was put a, stop to. This is the worst case of the kind [ have seen. If it is true that tho value of £35 per acre was a bogus ono— if it was bogus—then it must have been put on to deceive someone. It is time the Court spoke out about these cases." Counsel for the defendant: I say my client was persuaded to put up the valuation to £35. Mr. Kettle: For what object? Counsel: I don't know. Mr. Kettle: M'Neil swears that tho Valuations are true ones as given by both parties.. If the true value of the land was £35 per acre, why should not defendant pay commission upon that amount. Having spoken out further and described the transaction as juggling with figures, Mr. Kettle reserved his decision.