COLLAPSE OF THE MELBOURNE BOOM.

Press, Volume XLV, Issue 7214, 27 November 1888, Page 5

COLLAPSE OF THE MELBOURNE BOOM.

»— AN INSIGHT INTO LAND JOBBING. [FROM OUR CORRESPONDENT.] [Bγ TxueoKAFH ntox ths Btcre.] MELBOURNE, November 20. A most decided check has occurred to all speculation, and die boom is considered to be over. The banks have adopted a very cautious attitude, and are discriminating closely between ordinary mercantile paper and bills based on transactions in land, and as a consequence some of the land companies and syndicates are finding it difficult to finance, and have been compelled to offer extreme rates for discounts. The existing stringency affects chiefly those who are engaged deeply in real property business, and in the numerous companies brought out during the year. The indications point to a continuance of a rather tight money market for some time to come, at least until the large liabilities assumed by the public have been pretty | well liquidated. An action has been commenced, in which two leading land speculators are engaged, and the details of which give an insight into the methods of land jobbing which have prevailed of late. Mr Jas. Miranis, M.L.A., sues Mr David Munro, contractor, to recover £15,000 on an overdue bill of exchange. The bill was drawn by Mr Minima on Mr Munro on July 7th last at four months. It was accepted by Mr Munro, payable at the National Bank of Australasia. It was not paid, and Mr Mirams brought an action to recover the amount. Yesterday an application was made to Mr Justice Kerferd, in Chambers, on behalf of Mr Munro, for leave to defend the action. If leave is not given to defend a plaintiff is entitled to sign judgment. In support of the application for leave to defend, Mr Munro made the following affidavit, omitting the formal parts:—ln the month of July last I entered into negotiations with the plaintiff for the sale of some 1512 acres of land in the parish of Yaroke, in the county of Bourke, which, he stated to mc, he wished to purchase on behalf of himself and others, with a view of afterwards reselling to a Company; and he made it a condition of the purchase that as he could not obtain a commission out of the persons yho were associated with him, he would only buy if I could give him £15,000 for himself, or about £10 per acre less than the price disclosed in the contract. I agreed to sell him the land at £151,200 and interest, and to make him such a payment, and to give him my acceptance for the £15,000, provided that the acceptance should be renewed from time to time, until the sum cf £31,935, being being the amount of the first three promissory notes to be given by him in part payment of the purchase money were paid. The first promissory note for £1000 given by the plaintiff in part payment of the purchase money, fell due on the 10th November, and was dishonored on its due date, but has subsequently been paid; but no further part of the said purchase money has been paid as cash deposit or otherwise. A week before the acceptance sued on became due I saw the plaintiff, and requested him, in pursuance of our agreement, to renew the said acceptance, but he stated that the same was then in the hands of his banker. I believe that I have a good defence to this action on the merits, and this app ication for leave to defend is made bona Ade, and not for the purpose of delay. The leave to defend the action was granted.