MONEY MAKING.

Taranaki Daily News, Volume LVI, Issue 192, 12 February 1914, Page 3

MONEY MAKING.

-tkan<;ely ingenious METHODS." MAGISTRATE AND J.AXD AGENTS. At Auckland oil Wednesday of lail week light was thrown upon the details of a land speculation in the case of Frederick W. Manning (for whom Mr. J. E. Prcndergast appeared) v. Chas. E. Major (represented by Mr. W. Vallance) which was heard at the Magistrate's Court before Mr. Kettle, S.M. The claim was for £97 3s fid, alleged to be the defendant's share «i the expenses of a land deal in which both parties were concerned. The circumstances, according to the evidence of the plaintiir, were that in July, 1812, the defendant, a land agent, brought under his notice a property at Rotorua which was for sale at (is per acre. The defendant suggested that they should join in purchasing the property, stating that it could be turned over within a short period at a large profit. After consideration witness agreed and paid a deposit of £IOO himself, as the defendant was then short of cash.. A rough agreement was drawn up in which, he claimed, the defendant undertook to find half the purchase money and expenses. The property was immediately placed in the agent's hands ' for resale, the price of ils per acre being fixed. On September 6th, 1912, the vendors of the land were ready to Bettle, the amount payable by the parties be-: ing £1952. Defendant asked witness to •drance his «hare of the amount, * he could not raise the sum at the time. Witness refused, and together they went to the bank, and Major endeavored to ' raise an overdraft for the amount, but failed, and witness then paid the whole sum. The title to the property was taken out in witness's name. The agreement was that Major should pay his share as soon as he could, , The defendant's evidence was to the ' effect that when he could not find the required money a new arrangement was entered into by which Manning was to take the whole of the liability, but if witness could sell the property within six months he (Major) shoiild get half the profit*.

■Mr. Kettle: So if it turned out trumps you were to be in; if not y»u wcro to be out.

Mr. Vallance pointed out that tM» agreement was subject to the land being sold at not less than 9s per acre. Mr. Kettle, after making reference to the complicated nature of the case, and to the unfortunate circumstance that the agreements had not been drawn up clearly in legal fashion, asked Mr. Prendergast why his client had not taken the whole matter to the Supreme Court. If the defendant was liable for one part of the sum involved, he was liable for the whole amount. Even if he did give judgment for the expenses further litigation would probably be necessary. . Charles M'Masters, land salesman, stated that he could have obtained 9s per acre for the property from a syndicate. The plaintiff put a price of 10s on it. Mr. Kettle: Who was your syndicate?

Witness: I was arranging o»e. Mr. Kettle: Then you could not have sold it for 9s. You arc trying to m1»lead me by trifling with my intelligence. Yon only imagined you could Bell the land at the price. E. G. Pegler, the agent through whom the. land was bought, was put in the box at the request of Mr. Kettle, who examined him as to the transactions over the hind prior to the deal in question. Witness said that he had procured an option of 5s lid an acre on the property. Mr. Kettle: And you asked C= for .t from the parties in this case. Is it a fair thing? Witness said that the whole matter was complicated. Mr. Kettle: But don't yon sec how wrong it is? Witness:—T believe the buyers knew that I had this option. Mr. Keith!: Did you tell them? Witness: No. H was finally agreed that the case should stand over for a week to allow Mr. Prendcrga?t to consider Mr. Kettle's suggestion that the action should be removed to the Supreme Court. His Worship remarked that it was the most extraordinary land transaction he had come across. Land agents appeared to have, strangely ingenious methods of making money by means of opUons and sub-options and syndicates'.