FARM BUDGETS.

Auckland Star, Volume LXIII, Issue 160, 8 July 1932, Page 2

FARM BUDGETS.

OPERATION IN CANTERBURY. INTERESTING INQUIRIES. FARMERS SEEK INFORMATION. Sonic interesting inquiries into the working of the Canterbury Chamber of Commerce jcliome of farm budgets are made by a Mothven correspondent, signing himself "J.C." i" a letter to "The Frees." He says there are points which many farmers are in doubt about. The five questions lie asks, with the chamber s reply to each, are us follow: — (1) Has the mercantile firm a right to claim out of tiie year's profits, interest upon the amount due from the farmer at the time when lie came under the scheme? A.—Under the scheme, an arrangement is made between the farmer, the mortgagee, and the stock firm that any surplus income at the end of the year, after paying for the working of the farm and the household expenses of the fiirmor, is divided on an arranged plan a<niinst the interest <lno to the mortgagee of the land and the interest due to e lhe mortgagee of the stock. We are informed that in the majority of cases the surplus for division falte far short of the interest due. (2) Have the .storekeeper, blacksmith, etc anv claim to a percentage of the year's profits, or are they left out in the cold'.' A —If the inquiry is whether former unsecured debts to storekeepers, blacksmiths, and other,; are eligible for a proportion of the year's profits, the answer is no. Their debts were unsecured; they have no claim against any assets But part of the arrangement ~,,der the scheme is thut the supplies by the local storekeeper, blacksmith, and others, which are necessary for the year s working, arc paid for out of the a<. varices made by the stock firm for the year. (3) If the year under the scheme shows a loss, 'is the liability arising therefrom to the firm and mortgagee curried forward to become another burden on the shoulders of the unfortunate fanner? \ if a loss i* shown under the scheme it may either be carried forward to the following year, in case there should then be a profit, or it may be carried forward to increase the debt due to the stock [inn. We understand that in some cases the stock firm is writing o(T such losses. We are informed that there are few cases where a loss is made on these Chamber of Commerce accounts.

(4) If he :ippciiled to the Court for protection under the Mortgagors' Relief Act, would lie be able to obtain any protection from tile mercantile firm as well us from the mortgagee? Could the Court reduce, the debt or interest, and. if so, by what amount? A. — We aio informed that under porao amuigoinenst made under the Mortgagors' Relief Act, both mortgagees and stock firms have agreed to reduce their rale, of interest n« well as to accept only ;i proportion of what may come to them out of tin; divisable surplus resulting from the year's working. (5) Is there not a danger that the farmer who has applied to the Court for relief may by so doing incense the mortgagee to such an extent that he may retaliate utter the expiry of the protection afforded by the Act, and take action to remove the mortgagor from the farm ? A.— lt will be open to the mortgagee eventually to claim what is due to him under his mortgage, and no one can say what Ills aotion may be in the future because no one knows what farm returns (which govern the value of the land] may bo. But it is assumed that if a mortgagee carries a farmer during the depression lie will be willing to retain (hat farmer on the property after the depression, so long'as the property is properly farmed. There cannot, howover, be any permanent bar imposed on a mortgagee realising his security.