LAND JOBBING IN WELLINGTON.

Globe, Volume XX, Issue 1557, 14 February 1879, Page 3

LAND JOBBING IN WELLINGTON.

[By Telegraph.] [from our own correspondent.] Wellington, February 13. Some curious disclosures were made during the hearing of the civil case Austin v Lottkowitz, at the Resident Magistrate’s Court to-day. Plaintiff claimed ,£2B for commission and other charges in connection with a laid art union Plaintiff is a coremission agent. On the I2th December the plaintiff told him that ho had some land which he wished to dispose of. Ho had been to the auctioneers, but they refused to t-ko it, stating that there had been too many little townships and allotments laid out lately. Besides land at Featherston would not sell at any price. He asked witness if he could dispose of the land on the art union principle, and witness said he thougut he could. It was arranged that witness was to got per cent, for disposing of tickets, together with advertising and travelling expenses. There were to be 600 tickets at 10s each. He was unable to sell any tickets where the land was known. Instead of being laud it was all stone [laughter], and instead of driving in pegs the surveyors had to build up stone around them to keep them in position. The only place in the Wairarapa where ho could dispose of tickets was at Carterton, where the people knew nothing at all about the land. On the 28th January the defendant took the plan away, and advertised that ho had taken the land out of witness’ hand, as the requisite number of tickets had not been sold. In cross-examination witness was obliged to admit that he proposed to defendant to so work the art union that ho and witness should win all the prizes. Mr Stafford in defence contended that an agreement to carry out a lottery was an illegal contract, and could not be enforced. Ho argued that the English Lotteries Act applied to New Zealand, and quoted from ' * Chitty on Contracts,” to show that an agreement to carry out what was made illegal by statute was invalid. He then called defendant, a bootmaker, who deposed that the agreement was that plaintiff was to receive £ls and the expense of advertising in the “ Evening Post.” hut in no other paper. The plai -tiff suggested, wh-n fifty tickets had been sold, that he and witness should have ti e money and iho prizes too. Witness was offended, and made up his mind to take away the property. Witness added that he was sick of land and had made up his mind to stick to his hoots and shoes. In cross-examina-tion witneui sa*d he knew nothing of the laud.

When ho bought it at a sale of Duncan’s Mr Duncan said he would clear £ .(10 by it in a year, and he bought it on that assurance. The advertisement of the lottery was read It was headed “A Section of Land for 10s,” and advertisers (Austin and Co.) added, “ Stick to us and we will show you how to make your fortune.” Mr Mansford reserved judgment.