A LAND DEAL.

Hokitika Guardian, 21 June 1924, Page 1

A LAND DEAL.

COMMENTS BY JUDGE

AUCKLAND, June 19,

“It is no wonder that returned soldiers fail in their farming ventures if the circumstances are similar to those just revealed,” said Mr Justice Stringer in the Supreme Court in delivering'judgment ina- case in which Joseph Walker Moore, of Pukckohe, claimed £f)8o from Thomas Maxwell, of Marannrua. fanner, in respect to a promisorv note and interest, or alternatively lo ll Ms S)d, the sum allegedly awarded

to plaintiff by a ]anil agent who acted as arbiter. Evidence was to the effect that plaintiff cave an option to defendant and plaintiff’s brother, both returned soldiers. over a farm at £.1960. Application was made to the Land Board for an advance, lint the board would not allow a second mortgage of £OOO. Plaintiff alleged that defendant then suggested it was customary for returned soldiers purchasing farms to get vendors to accept nrnmisory notes to cover the excess over the advance. This was accepted in two notes of £IBO each. The promissory note was disclaimed by defendant, owing to a difference regarding the area of swamp land. Summing up, his Honor said that by refusal to entertain tlie proposal for a second mortgage the hoard showed it could not sanction the advance unless the balance of £960 was taken off

tlio ]>rife. Plaintiff and defendant tlien concocted a .lot tej- to tlie lioard in which they professed to lie prepared to accept the valuation of £3OOO. That was a false and altogether an improper statement, as they had made a surreptitious arrangement whereby the balance of £OOO was secured to plaintiff bv promissory notes. “The conclusion,” said his Honor, “is that the parties conspired together to make a fraudulent representation to the Oo-

vommont in or-doi- to obtain a loan. 'J'lie transaction was illegal, and phiintiiT lias no local claim, although defendant was equally a party to the deception. The Government in a]; os the fullest advanro possible, and it is its endeavour to see that no undue burdens are imposed by private agreements/’ Judgment was for defendant without costs.