A MONKEY ON A MOUNTAIN.

Shannon News, 22 September 1925, Page 4

A MONKEY ON A MOUNTAIN.

ADVENTURES OF A MANGAHAO MORTGAGE. LAND AGENT SUED FOR £16,000 DAMAGES. HAMILTON, September 17. A case involving ai claim for £16,000 damages for alleged misrepresentation concerning a property near Mangahao, occupied the attention of Mr. Justice Herdman at the Supreme Court during the last three days. The parties were William Allen Patterson, farmer, of Te Rapa, and Jane Patterson, spinster, Auckland (claimants) and Frederick Charles Hand, land agent, formerly of Hamilton (defendant).

The allegation was that on defendant’s representation that th e investment was safe, as defendant had sold the property for £40,000 and the mortgage represented the balance of the unpaid purchase money, plaintiffs accepted the mortgage of £17,650 in exchange for plaintiff’s equity in a farm and stock whichj was set down at £12,150. The purchaser paid £SOO cash, plaintiffs giving a sub-mortgage of £6OOO, representing the difference between their equity in the farm and stock and the mortgage received by them. No interest was received by plaintiffs on the large mortgage while plaintiffs paid interest on thte submortgage. It was claimed that plaintiffs. by reason of alleged acts of defendant, had lost the value of the farm and stock valued at £12,150 and in addition, lost £3OOO in interest and paid travelling, legal and other expenses incurred while (endeavouring ten retrieve their loss by disposing of the said property. It was also claimed that defendant, as a paid land agent of plaintiffs, owed them a duty in disposing of their farm, to be faithful and just to them and exercise on their behalf the best of his skill and ability in disposing of their property on the best and safest terms. Evidence brought up showed that Hand later acquired the submortgage and exerted a pressure on plaintiffs, subsequently exercising powers of sale and buying in the whole property for £5400, plaintiffs receiving nothing. His Honour reserved judgment. 4000 FEET UP!

In opening the ease for plaintiff, Mr. Blair said it was one against a land agent who was charged by the plaintiff with fraud, a wicked and cruel fraud. An alternative claim was that defendant had been guilty of a breach of duty as plaintiff’s land agent. The circumstances, said Mr. Blair, were that the Waiopehu-Levin Land Company owned a block of precipitous rocky country at Mangahao, near Levin’ comprising some 10,000 acres which was represented to be good timber country. As a matter of fact, it was sparsely timbered ,and the timber was unworkable. Some of the land was 4000 ft. high. The Land Company exchanged its interest in the block to a Hamilton solicitor for certain Waikato lands.

The value of the mortgage on the Mangahao property was £17,645. The Hamilton solicitor saw that he had been stung by the transaction and the mortgage -was given to Hand to sell. A Mr. Griffin became interested in the property but he was warned to be scrupulously careful before buying. He and A. E. Whittaker, Hand’s manager or partner, saw people named Bird Brothers, who knew the Mangahao block well. The Birds described the property accurately and stated that it was absolutely worthless. There was a certain amount of timber on it, they said, but it could not be worked. Whittaker stated that, in view of what Bird Brothers said, he would not touch the place. Griffin did not take any further action. Tlie Mortgage Goes Round.

A man named Slater then became interested, said counsel, and was induced to part with some Hutt properties in exchange for the mortgage. Slater soon realised the value of the mortgage and placed it with Hand for sale. An advertisement offering an £IB,OOO first mortgage as a deposit on good sheep country or a block of dairying land was published by the Farmers’ Land Agency Company, which was Hand. Whittaker’s name was inserted in the advertisement as manager. The plaintiff, W. A. Paterson, who owned a farm of 1300 acres at Te Poi, saw the advertisement and called to see Whittaker.

Whittaker was out and Hand interviewed Paterson. Hand stated that his client was a wealthy man for whom he had done business aggregating- £200,000. Hand also represented to Paterson that the £IB,OOO mortgage was the balance of the purchase money on the Mangahao property which, he said, had been bought for £40,000. He said that as far as Paterson was concerned, this represented as perfect a security as could be obtained, for there appeared to be £22,000 in hard cash behind it. Relying on the representations by Hand, Paterson concluded the exchange, said counsel, and transferred his Tc Poi property and stock, valued at £12,150, to Slater. He received from Slater the transfer of the mortgage on the Mangahao property. Slater paid him £SOO and he executed a submortgage in favour of Slater for £6OOO, being the difference between the represented, values of the two properties exchanged. Compelled to Take Over. Continuing, Mr. Blair said Slater was able to pay interest on- the property he had taken over from Paterson for a few months only, and he then defaulted. Patersons were pressedt and were then compelled to take over the Mangahao block. Hand had already received £225 in commission and he refused to allow the transfer of the property to Paterson to go through unless he was paid a further £250. Slater hypothecated the mortgage of £6OOO he held to Hand, who exercised pressure on Paterson for the interest due. Paterson borrowed money from relatives to satisfy the demands. Hand then threatened to exercise his power of sale, said counsel, and only agreed to postpone the sale for two months on Paterson paying him £6OO, and in the event of the sale going on the estimated value of the sub-mortgage was to be £5400. Paterson paid the £6OO, but. when five weeks had elapsed, Hand advertised the sale, the date of which was to be just after the two months had passed. That advertisement nullified all efforts Paterson made to sell the place privately . Client Left With Noticing.

The upshot of the whole business Mr. Blair said, was that Paterson had lost his Te Poi farm, had paid Hand £475 commission and £6OO and paid out £7OO in other expenses, and now Hand had taken over the Mangahao block and had left his client with nothing. In the course of his evidence plaintiff said the net result of the whole transaction, was that he had lost his equity in his farm and stock at Te Poi valued at £12,150; Hand had bought in the Mangahao property at a forced sale at £5400, and witness had paid Hand £475 in commission and £-600 to delay the sale, which had not been done. He had also paid two lots of interest of £3OO and had lost interest on £12,000, the amount he believed would be his equity in Mangahao for ih years. It was on these losses that he based his claim in the action. In answer to Mr. Findlay as to the value of the Mangahao property, witness said the Hamilton solicitor who first held the mortgage, had valued the block at £40,000, and had tried to sell it to the Government for £IOO,000. Counsel: He was optimistic. His Honour: Another soldier’s farm (Laughter). Witness denied that he would have had to walk off his Te Poi property if he had not quitted it. It was a good farm.