PROPERTY DEAL

Gisborne Times, Volume LXV, Issue 10315, 26 January 1927, Page 2

PROPERTY DEAL

CLAIM FOE LNTF.UEST

INVOLVED JUDGMENT SUMMONS CASE MAGISTRATE SUGGESTS INVESTIGATION An echo of a land purchase in the Opotiki distuct during the boom period was heard by Air -E. C. Levvey S.M., in the Magistrate’s Cour: yesterday when Robert Robb applied for a judgment summons order against James Haskins for the sum of £46 los 6d. “Haskins was one of tlio victims of speculation in the hoom period” explained Mr L. T. Burnard who represented him. During that period of inflated values, Haskins. together with a mail named- Peryer bought a leasehold farm at Opotiki, but after felling the bush and working it for a while Haskins, .abandoned it but meantime the interest has Been mounting up. Some little time ago Haskins transferred tlio property to his wife and had no assets at all to pay the interest. The Magistrate: Is it not a matter for the Bankruptcy Court? Mr Burnard: That is so, but I am pointing out that he lias no assets to discharge the interest liability, and apart from that he is not now the owner of the property. If the plaintiff raised any objections to the facts he could institute bankruptcy proceedings. Evidence was given by Haskins to the effect that he and Peryer had bought the leasehold farm at Opotiki four years ago. Witness put .{.BOO into the property and althong.i Feiyer said lie had. the money he did not consider it necessary to invest it in the land at that time, and had never .put his share into the property, thus handicapping its development. Witness had worked and improved the place for year hut finding it unprofitable lie abandoned it after about twelve months. The property had been used for graring since then, but Peryer had received all the pio^ - # ceeds. There was now two years’ rent owing.. Ilis wife, he explained owned a .mall farm at Manutuke producing about £250 a year, which •was just sufficient for his family to live on. Questioned by Mr Coleman, witness admitted that he was dairying on the Manutuke property, running six cows. He further admitted that six months ago he had held a clearing sale when he disposed of 12 to 15 cows, which realised £3OO. He had transferred the Opotiki property to his wife in Fel>u,ary 1925 mainly to protect himself. He agreed that the Opotiki property was a. Government renewal lease which was valued at £llOO when he bought it but lie denied that the property was now worth £2OOO. The Magistrate: It seems to me that this, is a case for investigation in the proper Court. Supposing I find that the transfer was put through for fraudulent purposes. I can’t do anything. No order was made.