THE SKINNING OF SKINNER.

BUNCOED BY BANNERMAN. Radcliffe Sues for Salary. Justice Edwards Says There was Dummyism.

It is not a considerable time since readers of "Truth" were made acquainted with details of an action m which a Christ 1 * hureh bookmaker named Skinner recovered £1550 irom a local land awi commission agent named John Gordon Banmerman, said amount being damages for misrepresentation concerning a sheep . run on the Wanganui river and pur-chased-by Skinner. Bannermaii just now is having wfeat is known m sporting parlance as a ' 'crook run."-. In the \Suprorrie Court, Wangianui, recently, an individual named Joseph Lowem Radcliffe proceeded against B&nnerman to recover the sum ol £500, salary daie to Radclifie as manager prior to the sale of the farm to Skinner. BA<NNERMAN COUNTERCLAIMED FOR £350 damages m respect of 700 sheep alleged to have been lost through the neglect of Radcliffe, and the case was heard before Mr Justice Edwards and a jury of twelve. These proceedings disclosed the fact that the farm is situated below Pipi.riki at a place with the historical name of Jerusalem, and when Radcliffie took charge of the ran as manager he was to get no salary, but was to be paid £500 if Bannerman diisposed of the property for £7500 or more. It will be recollected that evidence was given before a Christchurch jury of the manner m which the unhappy Skinner was imposed upon gnd signed an agreement to purchase at £7700, but it was not then Imown that the leasehold portion of "the property was rented from the Aotea Land Boaid by Leigh ton and two others, of Christehuroh, and that they were dummies for Bamnerman; Not one of the three leases was m the name of Bannerman, who was disqualified from taking up a lease owing to his inability to make the necessary declaration under the Land Act.. Notwithstanding this, however, the rents were paid by Bannerman 's cheque. FURTHER PROOF OF. DUMMYISM was furnished by Bannerman himself, who was not able to state what proportion of Skinner's £7700 had been received by the alleged owners of iihe leases. Mr Justice Edwards expressed the opinion that Bannerman had 'been guilty of duanmyistn, because the leases were taken m the name of three Ohristohuroh residents who had nerer beard or dreamt of iix> place. No doubt the matter would be noticed by the proper authorities. The jury expressed) its displeasure at the tactics of Bannerman by finding for Radcline m the full amount of £500 claimed, with costs. Also, they disallowed Bannerman's counterclaim of £350 for the alleged loss of woollies. A remarkable feature of this case was THE DENSE AND MASTERFUL SILENCE of the Wanganui papers, until some person prodded them up, when a skeleton of the facts found publication. A wide dissemination of the details would be particularly disastrous to Baninermian, who didn't apprise Skinner that the three leases were held by dummies, mi Skinner believed that Bannerman's title to them was good. One penalty of dummy ism is forfeiture of the leases, and as Skinner valued the leases at about £1000 when he bought, and has since spent about £313 m felling bush on the sections 1 , Bannerman will have to meet yet another claim from Skinner lor a large sum ol money. Jerusalem %