EVASION OF LAND SALES ACT

Ashburton Guardian, Volume 66, Issue 271, 28 August 1946, Page 7

EVASION OF LAND SALES ACT

EXCESSIVE PAYMENT FOR FURNITURE

APPEAL DISMISSED (P.A.) AUCKLAND, Aug. 27. The decision of Mr J. H. Luxford, S.M., in fining a man £IOO for alleged evasion of the Land Sales Act in the purchase of a house property was challenged in an appeal brought before Mr Justice Callan.

Appellant was Frederick George Thomas Whitfield, who was convicted on July 25 of having entered into an arrangement with Mrs Violet Vivienne Blow that was intended to be inconsistent with an application made under the provisions of the Servicemens Settlement and Land Sales Act and its amendments.

Appellant claimed that the Magistrate’s decision was erroneous in, fact and in law, that it was against the weight of evidence and that the fine was excessive. Opposing the appeal on behalf of the Crown, Mr G. S. R. Meredith said that Whitfield had visited Mrs Blow in response to an advertisement and Mrs Blow told him the price of the property was £4500. Whitfield agreed to purchase at that price and Mrs Blow told him that there would be separate transactions of £3400 for the house and land and £llOO for furniture which belonged to her husband. She stipulated that the furniture must be bought first. An agreement for the sale and purchase of Mrs Blow’s property at Mt. Albert at £3400 was drawn up in a solicitor’s office and all the relevant documents were signed, including a declaration that there were no other arrangements or agreements associated with the transaction. There was a considerable quantity of furniture in the house when it was sold, but when Whitfield got possession only a small proportion of it remained. By far the greater part of it had been removed by Blow to Christchurch, where he was going to live with his wife. Detective W. R. Fell produced a statement that Whitfield had given him in which he said he valued the furniture he got for the payment of £llOO at about £IOO. He was quite willing to pay £4500 for the house. He had only been a fortnight in New Zealand at the time. lnadvertence*or Ignorance Mr Henry for the appellant submitted that the intention alleged against the appellant must be proved to exist in his mind at the time the arrangement was entered into. Counsel claimed that there was either complete inadvertence on the part of appellant or complete ignorance of the application to be made. The fact that he was eager to pay the money showed that he had no evil intentions. In dismissing the appeal, his Honour said there was no doubt that the parties intended the two component parts of the deal to be dependent on each other. Mrs Blow was determined that if she did,not get £4500 Whitfield was not to have the house. Whitfield in order to go through with the deal had to take the furniture. His Honour held that appellant was in a position to know what he was doing when signed the documents in the solicitor s office. “Whitfield is much less to he blamed than the vendor,” said his Honour.. “I can understand the public resenting the fangs of the law centring on the purchaser, and I agree ethically that the vendor is more guilty. It is the duty of the courts to deal with people brought before them, and there may be difficulties to explain why others are not treated in the same way It does not follow that this case » the end of the proceedings to which, the occurrence referred to may give rise.