TELEGRAMS.

Hokitika Guardian, 25 March 1920, Page 4

TELEGRAMS.

[PER PRESS ASSOCIATION. —COPYRIGHT.] EXPORTERS’ DEMAND. CHRISTCHURCH, Mara. 24 At to-day’s meeting of tils Ncith Canterbury Farmers’ Union, the ioliowing motion waß carried: — “That in view of the volime and value of our Dominion exports of w.-oj, meat, dairy produce, etc., 't is essei.i-'a l that some provision be made for the safeguarding of the interests of the Dominion producers when the exii'-’iig vov tj-acts with the imperial Gove-p.m-m; terminate. To this end this Ej.ecr.ti c suggests to the Dominion i •ive:niu. i * the advisability of retaining Sir ltrs Mackenzie in the capacity m Produce Commissioner for New Zealand, l orn of opinion that fife wide experience gained during the many years of close connection with our trade and commerce eminently qualify him to fill this position.” LOAN PROPOSAL DEFEATED. PALMERSON NORTH, March 24. Great interest centred in a proposal to raise an additional £112,0000 for a tramway scheme in Palmerston North. The issue resolved itself into a contest of trams versus good roads and busses. The loan was defeated hv 111 votes.

REFUSED A LICENSE. CHRISTCHURCH, March 24

At .lie Magistrate’s Court the application was made by Mr Alfred Avery, on behalf of Craddocks’ Agency Company, Ltd., for renewal of a Land Agent’s License. It was opposed by the Land Agents’ Association, oil the ground that the applicant was a non payer of debts, and that during the past seven or eight years, sixty or seventy summonses had been served on him from various sources.

Counsel for applicant held that because some creditors had used the court to recover debts, owing by applicant, it was no reason why a license should be refused, and applicant debarred from earning a living. Avery had always paids 20s in the £, and to-day was perfectly solvent. The necessary bond lmd been given and applicant’s suitableness to bold a license was testified to. No objection bad been raised in the past, and if a license were withheld, it would result in a loss to the shareholders in the company. Counsel submitted that no reasonable ground had been brought forward to challenge the issue of a license.

The Magistrate said that the primary duty of the court in such cases was to protect the public. While a person might be a fit man to hold a license, the court had to consider the question of his finances, as an agent in poor financial circumstances, would, in his opinion, be open to temptation There was nothing in the present case against the character of the applicant, but it had been shown that lie had been sued for various accounts, and at the present time was owing a matter of £75 on a land transaction. In view of these circumstances he could not see his way to grant the application, which was accordingly refused.