INFLATED LAND VALUES.

Auckland Star, Volume XLVI, Issue 72, 25 March 1915, Page 9

INFLATED LAND VALUES.

ARRANGING EXCHANGES. DECISION* RESERVED. ■ further evidence was heard yesterday afternoon at the Magistrate's Court by Mr. C. C. Kettle, S.M.. in the case of ■Andrew McNeill, land agent (Mr. F. Brown), v. George A. Farmer (Mr. jlassey), claim to recover £.114 12/6 tomnu'ssion on a transaction in farm property and £30 14/3. money lent. The defence" was that plaintiff had agreed to accept a nominal commission of £20, md- accordingly defendant-had forwardid- a cheque for that amount, adding another £20 for money lent. i'\Alfred Crosby, called by defendant, •itated he was in plaintiff's office, and jgard- Mr. McNeill say the commission •would only be nominal. - In answer to Mr. Brown, witness said he did not hear what property was referred to. He had never said Farmer had offered __■____ £20 to swear anything. Tanner did say he would give witness £20 jf he could settle the case without it going to Court. Witness went to see the plaintiff twice to try and settle tbe case. He offered plaintiff £50, in addition to the £40 McNeill had already got. . Farmer «id he would give witness £20 if he settle the case for £50. Witness had been on a charge of trespassing on the racecourse. That charge was withdrawn. Another charge of being a rogue and vagabond had been dismissed by the magistrate. I. Mr. Massey said the land agents' rules Etaied that commission should be on the fvalue of the land.'" That he claimed to fc £25 per acre. ',- Mr. Kettle said it was a bad principple . ior men to fix inflated values when they were arranging a basis for the exchange cf.their properties. 7 Mr. Brown said plaintiff did not-admit that £24j an acre was the real value of the land. His Worship's comments would Jave been quite warranted if two parties jiad conspired to put up the valuations of the properties for the purpose of deceiving others, but in this case Salter's land was valued at £!) 10/ per acre. JFanner's statement was that it was not worth more than £7 10/, and the value of his own land was put up to £35 per acre. As Salter was satisfied with his deal at that valuation, where was the fraud t Salter's farm was in the first place put in Mr. McNeill's hands at £10 per acre. The ' ibasis of the exchange was as follows; •Farmer's area was 131 acres at £35 per acre, £4,585, less mortgage of £800, leaving £3,785. Salter's area was 640 acres 'at £9 10/ per acre, £6,050, less mortgage ; '£3,466. leaving £2,614. The amount to vhe paid by Salter was equivalent to an equity of exchange of £1,171- That was Bettled apparently by £500 cash and a * mortgage for £600. Mr. Brown therefore . claimed that 'plaintiff was fairly entitled to commission on £35 per acre. The agreement was proved, the services rendered,' therefore the commission was" earned. Andrew McNeill (recalled by the Court) said he had no agreement or understanding with Fanner that he would 4 *n6t accept less than his proper conimis- ■ Bion. Mr. Kettle: Do you swear absolutely ■ that £35 and £9 10/ per acre for the •respective properties was a fair valuation iv each case?

•Witness: Yes; both -parties considered it a fair I considered it a ; fair: price for .the land. "The price; of £35 per : acre was fixed before Salter's -agreement.Three years ago Salter's own property was worth £8 10/ per acre. I consider both valuations were bona fide. Ido not think the other property could be got for less than £35 per acre now, as it- is a seaside property. _ George A. Fanner (recalled by the Court) said £7 10/ and £25 per acre were the proper valuations of each property. His own valuation was raised to £35 to effect a sale. Had that not been done there would have been no sale on his part. Mr. Kettle said the only point he had trouble to decide was whether plaintiff \«as entitled to commission on £25 or £35 per acre. In his opinion, the agent had earned his commission. At the same time he believed there had been some talk about a reduction in the commission, but no clear arrangement had been arrived at. When defendant sent plaintiff "the cheque for £40 he did not state it •was in full settlement, but that it was all he had. Mr Kettle said he would take time to consider what commission would be Tallowed, and probably, having heard his Views, the parties might come to some arrangement in the interim.