Land Agent’s Fraud.

Hokitika Guardian, 25 July 1922, Page 4

Land Agent’s Fraud.

WELLINGTON, July 21

The Court of Appeal heard argument to-day in the ease of Louisa Dorris Belcher v. Charles Dixon and Gilbert Dixon.

The facts of the ease as stated wore that Allan Hopkins, formerly a land agent, Christchurch, had in 1018 02000 belonging to respondents. This amount they insti noted him to invest liir them in the purchase of two mortgages over the property of T. \Y. Belcher. Hopkins purchased one of these mortgages, hut not the other, lie then told Mrs L. D. Belcher, the appellant, that the respondents had these two mortgages for sale, and she agreed to huv them. Hopkins told the respondents that they would lie repaid the £2llOO which was owed by him to them on July 31st, 1010. He then got the appellant and respondents to meet in his office on July 31st, 1010. Appellant at that meeting paid over £2OOO which the respondents received. Site thought she was purchasing the two mortgages above referred to and respondents thought they wore receiving, payment of the £2OOO which they left in Hopkins’s hands for investment. : Litter oil when the fact was discovered : that Hopkins had not purchased the . two 'mortgages for the Dixons, the appellant managed to get transferred to her the one mortgage Hopkins had purchased. She then sued the respondents for the amount of the other mortgage, which she thought she had purchased from them the amount claimed being £101(1 5s sd. In the Supreme Court, Mr Justice Adams gave_ judgment for the respondents, and Mrs Belcher appealed. Sir John Findlay, with him Mr Hunter, appeared for appellant, and .Mr Sim with him Mr E. W. White, for the respondents. Sir ‘John Findlay said the question was as to which of two innocent parties should suffer. The whole question turned on what had taken place at the meeting on July 31st, 1919. The tacts of that meeting showed that the appellant and respondents were never of one mind as to the nature of the transaitiott. In any ease there was a total failure of consideration. Appellant wrote out her cheque for £2OOO, which was Ini tided direct to the respondents by Hopkins’s clerk. Hopkins had never had possession of the appellant’s cheque and never repaid to the respondents the £2OOO which he had ot theirs. The judge below was wrong in finding that the respondents bad accepted tlm cheque from the appellant in satisfaction of any debt due by Hopkins to them. The appellant, lie submitted, was entitled to recover the amount of her loss from the respondents.

Mr Hunter also addressed the Court in support of appellant’s contentions. Tbe ease bad not been concluded when tbe Court adjourned.