The Telephone. PUBLISHED EVERY EVENING. GISBORNE, TUESDAY, MAY 6.

Poverty Bay Standard, Volume I, Issue 124, 6 May 1884, Page 2

The Telephone. PUBLISHED EVERY EVENING. GISBORNE, TUESDAY, MAY 6.

11l our last issue appeared a communication from a correspondent complaining that “The New Zealand Settlement Company sold the North Gisborne sections at good prices, on cash terms, on .lan. 17. guaranteeing a good title under the Land Transfer Act. It now appears that the fact of the block being mortgaged was concealed, and that no title can be granted unless subject thereto. Can you give any reliable information on the subject?” In answer to this inquiry we can only say that the whole transaction has been a faithless one from beginning to end, and purchasers were allowed to pay their money for land and to erect buildings upon the same which the vendors knew' full well that they could not possibly give any title to the same when they had no Lona fide, one on the land themselves. With a view of showing our correspondent that when the land was put up for sale in January last the agents of the Company were grossly deceiving the public in stating that a clear title could be given under the Land Transfer A ct, we will give a brief history of how matters stood. At that time the Company, through its agents here, had come to an understanding with Mr. Percival Barker to take over a certain portion of the Whaiaupoko Block at a stated price, but the usual clogging difficulty which besets the Company in all its operations, also occurred here, and the same old remedy was also resorted to in Mr. Barker’s case as that which has been adopted in all others, viz., a little money was passed, a deal of paper given, and an unlimited amount of faithless promises made up the bargain. As a security for the payment of the balance, Mr. Barker held a mortgage over the land, and when the same was sold at public auction the mortgagee was to receive fifty per cent, out of the cash proceeds. It is needless to say that the money was not paid. Cheques were dishonored, and the usual duplicity which invariably characterises all the Company’s actions, was practised also in this instance. Notwithstanding that the simple purchasers of allotments in this block were given to understand that a clear title could be given, and their money taken on this understanding, it was well known that the title deeds were quite incomplete without the endorsement of the mortgagee. It has been said that each time a new structure was commenced on the block the mortgagee was heard to chuckle, as it added more and more to his security. But as is usual in the majority of cases, the loudest Barker is seldom a biter, and purchasers can rest content that, so far as that gentleman is concerned, their title is now good and complete.