NEW ZEALAND NEWS

Taihape Daily Times, Volume 7, Issue 172, 25 March 1915, Page 4

NEW ZEALAND NEWS

FOUND DEAD. OLD FARMER’S UNHAPPY FATE. (By Telegraph.—Press Association.} AUCKLAND, This Day. David Walton, aged 78, a farmer,was found dead in a ditcli on the roadside. It is supposed he fell in the ditch at night and was nimble to get out owing to and blackberry fbusliQ^. N.Z. WAR CORRESPANDENT. WELLINGTON March 24. A committee of editors, consisting of Messrs Leys (Auckland “Star”), Cohen (Dunedin “Star”), Earle (Dominion”), and Tir-iggs (Christchurch Tress”) to-day considered applications for the position of war corres>ondent with the New Zealand forces. They will make recommendations to he Minister for Internal Affairs, with vhom lies the final selection. A SURPRISING INCIDENT. PARLIAMENTARY CANDIDATE ARRESTED. AUCKLAND, March 24, This morning a young man named vV. P. Storey was arrested by Detective Gourley on a charge that he was in idle and disorderly person with insufficient lawful means of support. Storey is a rather well-known figure ibout town. He had an office in town or the purpose of doing business as a financial agent and just prior to last Parliamentary elections he came into mblic prominence by putting himself ip as an independent candidate for the Parnell electorate. He has just been mnounced as a candidate for a seat m the Auckland Education Board. MR KETTLE SPEAKS OUT. ALLEGED JUGGLING WITH FIGURES. AUCKLAND March 2L Magistrate Kettle made some very strong comments to-day in a case in vhich a land agent (Andrew McNeil), •rcceeded against a farmer (George Parmc-b) for commission alleged, to be lu e in respect to tire exchange cf land. It wa s stated in evidence that iha armer put his property into McNeil’s hands for sale at not less than £25 )er acre, but McNeil was unable to Mfect a sale. He then found another land-owner willing to whose ’arm was reputed to be worth £7 10s per ac);e. The two landowners agreed that for the purposes of exchange their land should be valued at £35 and £!) 10s respectively, and an agreement, was ratified accordingly. McT.UI, however, claimed his 2 h per cent, commission from Farmer at the price cf £35 per and Farmer refused to pay this and wanted to pay on a oasis of £25 per acre. Neither litigant mnld satisfactorily comply with the Magistrate’s request for an explanation of the increased values, and the latter said that it was a case of “ficti-’ tious valuation.” Then he proceeded: What purpose is it put up for excepting for swindling someone? It is high .ime this kind of thing wag stopped. This is the worst case of the kind T have seen, if it is true that the value :f £35 per acre was a bogus cue. .If it was bogus, then it must have been put on to deceive someone. It is time b e Court spoke out about these cases.’,’ Counsel for defendant: I say my Tent was persuaded to put the valuation to £35. Mr" Kettle: For what object? Counsel: I do not know. Mr Kettle; McNeil swears that Lie valuations are true ones as given by ooth parties. If the .time value of the an d was £ 35 per acre, why should lot the defendant pay commission J pon that amount?” Having spoken out further and described the transaction as Higgling ’Vith figures, Mr Kettle reserved his lecision.