NORTH AUCKLAND LAND BOARD.

Auckland Star, Volume LI, Issue 20, 23 January 1920, Page 6

NORTH AUCKLAND LAND BOARD.

TRANSFER OF MORTGAGE. ' APPLICATION REFUSED. The sitting of the North Auckland Land Board was resumed to-day. Several considerations were submitted yesterday afternoon while the Board was in committee. One case that was brought up was an application for a transfer to the applicant as mortgagee of a section. The applicant acquired some 568 acres of bush land by ballot in 1906. He had workeil it for eight years, expending £800, but, being unable to comply with the regulations regarding residence, he transferred the property, receiving £000 cash and giving a mortgage for £1765. The mortgagor, being now in England, and the arrears in interest being considerable, the applicant asked that the Board sanction the re-transfer of the property to the original owner, or, failing that, that a returned soldier take over the mortgage. Mr. P. K. (Jreville (Commissioner for Crown Lands) held, however, that since the land was not worth £'S per acre at present, the settling of a returned soldier on the land at the valuation of £3 could not be entertained. The Hoard considered that under the circumstances the best course for the applicant to follow was to sell the property by public auction in his rights as mortgagee, since the application to transfer the property to him could not be granted. , Another consideration was that of certain regularities in connection with property in ont , of the suburbs. It appears that" when the property was transferred with immediate possession the vendor's agent delayed in lodging with the Land Board the" ncee*?ary transfer. Finding the district unsuitable, another transfer with immediate possession took place, and by a coincidence the two applications for consent reached the Board at the same time, and it was then discovered that in the space of three months a profit of £i:io had been made by dealing in the property. The counsel for the owner argued that the only irregularity was the £130 made out of the transaction, and in this respect it was the owner's good fortune to have made a bargain. Mr. Greville said that too much had been taken for granted in not obtaining the consent of the Board in the first case. Under the circumstances, however, the Board would approve both transfers.