DEAL IN PROPERTY.

Auckland Star, Volume LXIII, Issue 185, 6 August 1932, Page 10

DEAL IN PROPERTY.

FALSE REPRESENTATION. " FARM" AT MANGONUI. ACCUSED FOUND GUILTY. Charges in connection with the transfer of a property were made at the Supreme Court yesterday against Arthur Marmadukc Mansill. Before Mr. Justice Smith and a jury, accused was charged with inducing Violet Helen Norgrove bv a false pretence to transfer to him oil August 31, 1929, a section in Glenside Terrace, the alleged false pretence consisting of representing to her agent that the security comprised in a mortcon sis ted of a farm property fenced and subdivided, and a four-roomed cottage in good order occupied by the mortgagor. Counsel for the Crown said the section covered by the mortgage, which comprised 40 acres at Mangonui, was in fern, scrub and gorse. There was no house on the property, and no grass. Offers by Accused. Violet Helen Norgrove, of Papakura, said she was part-owner of the section in Gleuside Crescent sold to Mansill for £400 cash and £550 on a first mortgage of a property at Mangonui. She was paid the cash, and Mansill guaranteed the payment of interest on the mortgage, which was assigned to liei. The deal was carried out through agents. Receiving no interest from Mansill, witness sued him and received £9, which was paid into Court. That was all the interest she had received. After she bad taken the proceedings she saw Mansill, who offered her a property at Avondale, but she would not accept it as she wanted the £550 owing on the mortgage. Mansill then offered her the rents from some shops, and two promissory notes for £25 each :f she would get the case withdrawn. He said he made the offer for the sake of his family and not because of any misrepresentation which it might be alleged had been made. Harold George Sayers, land agent, gave evidence touching the sale of the property and the negotiations between himself and Mansill. The latter had stated that the Mangonui property was a farm, that it was fenced and subdivided, and that a man named Evans was living on it in a four-roomed cottage. Bought for £10; Sold for £800. Formal evidence was given to prove the conveyance of the Mangonui property from Mansill to Evans in 1928. It was stated that Mansill secured it for £10 and sold it to Evans for £800, receiving a deposit of £250 and the balance of £550 by a first mortgage over the property. Detective Allsopp said Mansill made a statement in which he said he had not seen the property at Mangonui. Ho said he had purchased it for £10 and sold it nine days later to a man named Evans for £800. He had not seen Evans or had any correspondence with liim since the transaction. When asked about the £250 deposit, he said he was not going to answer any further questions. . Philip W. Lange, retired builder, said he had dealings with accused in 1928. Later lie discussed with him a mortgage oyer a ; property .at Mangonui. An agreement was made assigning a mortgage to witness, but witness could not get any interest, and told accused the section was a "dud." The arrangement was cancelled.

Witness Refuses to Answer. Hubert Charles Evans identified the deed of mortgage which he had given to Mansill for £550 over . the property at Mangonui. Witness was asked by counsel for the Crown how he came to acquire that property. He replied: "I refuse to answer any further questions in case I might incriminate myself." He was thereupon ordered to leave the witness box. Counsel for accused submitted that no one would be foolish enough to make the representations alleged when the property was so near to Auckland as to ; be easily available. His Honor referred to the lapse of three'years since the time of the transaction and to its bearing on the value of some of the oral evidence. The main point for the jury to • decide was whether the deal was made as a result of representations which accused knew to be false. After an hour's retirement the jury returned with a verdict of guilty. Sentence was deferred.