LAND JOBBING IN WELLINGTON.

Wairarapa Daily Times, Volume 2, Issue 88, 20 February 1879, Page 2

LAND JOBBING IN WELLINGTON.

, .uTlieGhristcliurch Press gives the follow-,; Itigaccount oftheLqttkowitzcaseto which we recently directed attention. As, it contains particulars not supplied by the Weilington papers wo reprint it ;-Soroe curious disclosures were made during tho, ."■'■• hearing of the civil case Austin v Lottkowitz,attlwKesideht Magistrate's. '..; to-day, Plaintiff claimed £2B for. commission and other charges in. connection • with a land art union. Plaintiff is a commission agent. On the 12th December tho plaintiff told him that he had some/ ' land which he wised to dispose of. He 1 - had been to the auctioneers, but they re- - fused to take it, stating thayhere had been, too many little townships and allotments laid out lately. Besides land at Esthers- . _./-, ton would not sell at any price. ',-^Risked'""' * witness if he could dispose of on the art union principle; and witness said ■ . lie thought ho could.. It was arranged that witness was to get 2i per cent, for disposing of tickets, together with adver-l : ' tising and travelling expenses. There were to be GOO tickets at 10s each. He was unable to sell any tickets where 1 tho ' ■' land was known, Instead of being land it was all stone—[laughter]—and instead of. driving in pegs the surveyors had to build up stono around them to keep, them in position, Tho only place in the Wairarapa where ho could dispose of any tickets was at Carterton, where the people knew nothing at all about the land. On the - ; 28th January tho defendant took the plan ■'■ away, and advertised that lie had taken the land out of the witness'hand, as the requisite number of tickets had not' been' sold. In, cross-examination witness was obliged to admit that he proposed to def en-.. - dant to 30 work the art union that he and witness should win all the prizes. Mr ■■ Stafford in defence contended that air agreement to carry out tho lottery was an : ' illegal contract, and could not bo enforced. He argued that the English Lotteries Act ' applied to New. Zealand, and quoted from " Ohitty on Contracts," to show .that an agreement to carry out what was made illegal by statute was invalid, He then called defendant, a bootmaker, who deposed that the agreement was that plaintiff was to receive £ls and the expense of advertising in the " Evening Post," but • in.no other paper. The plaintiff suggested, ■ when fifty tickets had been sold, that he and witness should have tho money and the prizes too. Witness was offended, and made up his mind to take away the , y property. Witness added that he was sick : '■.' \ of land and had made up his mind to stick ' tohisbootsandshoes, When cross-examined ' ■ witness said he know-nothing of the land. When he bought it'at the sale of Duncan's, Mr Duncan said ho would clear £IOO by it in a year, and he bought it on that assurance. The advertisement of the * lotfcory was read, It was headed "A section of land for 10s," and advertisers (Austin and Co,) added, " Stick to us arid •" we will show you how to make your fortune,' Mr Mansford reserved judgment,