“DUMMY” USED

Otago Daily Times, Issue 26630, 28 November 1947, Page 6

“DUMMY” USED

PURCHASE OF PROPERTY BREACHES OF ACT ALLEGED P.A. INVERCARGILL, Nov: 27. “ It is possible that steps may legally be taken to avoid the difficulties of any particular Act. There may be legal steps to be taken in this case. The court is entitled to take only the legal view of the Act,” commented Mr R. C. Abernethy, S.M., to-day, when adjourning the hearing of prosecutions brought by the Crown against Catherine Julia Crowe and Gladys Marion McKenzie for alleged breaches of the Land . Sales Act involving the use of a “dummy.” After submitting legal argument, Mr C. N. B. French, for the defendants, had asked for the dismissal of the informations. The magistrate replied that he was not prepared to dismiss the case without further consideration. He therefore adjourned the hearing until Wednesdaßlr J. R. Mills, for the Crown, said these were the first prosecutions under the Act in the Southland district and, he believed, the first in New Zealand under the particular section of the Act. In October, 1945, McKenzie was desirous of purchasing a two-storeyed brick property owned by Charles Albert Davis, in Gala street. The defendant owner her own house and was a joint owner of four other house properties in the city, all let, and a building site in Herbert street. In March, 1945, she had been involved in two cases where the Crown objected to her purchasing property on the grounds of undue aggregation. The Lands Sales Committee consented to the purchases, considering they were “border line cases. „ . In view of the amount of property owned by her, McKenzie realised that if she made application to purchase the Gala street property it might be refused, continued Mr Mills. It was agreed, in the circumstances, that she should get a friend to purchase the property on her behalf, and it was arranged at that time that the friend who was going to be the apparent purchaser would later transfer the property to the defendant. It was after discussions with the defendants then solicitor that the defendant contracted with Crowe to act for her. Except for a share in the family home, Crowe owned no other property, and it was realised that consent of the Land Sales Committee would be forthcoming if Crowe was named as the purchaser. McKenzie’s name was not mentioned to the committee, and the consent of the committee was duly granted. “ We do not dispute the facts,” said Mr French. “ The defence is that their actions were perfectly lawful and are allowed by the Act.”