FRAUD ALLEGED

Evening Post, Volume CIV, Issue 23, 27 July 1927, Page 13

FRAUD ALLEGED

PROPERTY- DISPUTE*

LAND AGENT AND CLIENT

Allegations of fraud were made in a case heard in the Supreme Court today before his Honour the Chief Justice (Sir Charles Skerrett). The plaintiff -was Thomas Pieraon Firman, ,■ a timber worker, of Lower Hutt (Mr. O. C. Mazengarb), and the defendant was Wilhelm Farquhar Eggers, land agent, of Wellington (Mr. A. B. Sievwright). The statement of claim alleged that EggeTs had received'£loo from Firman as a deposit on the purchase of a property, that the deal was not completed, and that Eggers had fraudulently failed to repay the amount: It was further contended that Eggers had. arranged a mortgage of-£3OO on another property for Firman, ; had,prepared it as to himself, and that Firman had duly executed it, but had not received the money, which, it was alleged,' Eggers had fraudulently from the plaintiff. Therefore the plaintiff claimed £400, with .interest to the date of -judgnient.A ■-- ■•. . . .

The defence set out that a partnership existed between Fir.man-and E<rgers in respect :of a number of sections in Karori, and that the accounts were still current. By those accounts, it was. alleged;: the money claimed-was not due. . ■.-.,-. .

The .-. plaintiff, in. evidence, said that he exchanged an Ohakune. property with, Eggers for several sections in Karon, but did not get' the title to them. :-Later he agreed, to exchange the sections for a house in Hopper street, the purchase price for the house being £1350, but subsequently bought another house-in the same street for £1250. At Eggers's suggestion: he allowed the £100-difference, in the purchase prices to be advanced as a deposit on another property, but" tho deal was not completed. He had an hazy idea that he signed the transfer of mortgage: on.the Hopper street property. Yesterday he inspected the -KiSWVi 6 SaW that the amount of £1350_ had been inserted, but not in his own figures. ... He had no intention tor purchasing the .second property in Hopper, .street at. £1350. Eggers himseir. advanced, the money for a £300 mortgage on the Hopper street house, but had not paid it over to plaintiff despite repeated requests. He. said he was waiting -/for the completion, of a land deal before making .payment. Mr. Sievwright produced a letter purporting to be written by Firman to Ergers, saying that the second property 1 £ I H? oPper street would, be suitable at" fcliSO... Counsel contended that Firman knew perfectly well tjiat: the property would cost ; £ 1350, and made no mention of any lower price in his let-

In,regard to the Karori sections, plaintiff admitted that, his equity in 'the; Ohakune-deal had been used as capital in the former transaction, but denied that there, was any partnership with Eggers on a.. "fifty-fifty basis for a house-building .scheme. He said however, that he"; supplied the timber and Eggers the money for the houses. .After hearing further evidence, his Hon«ur ■ remarked: "This case clearly shows the way not to do business. Tho transaction has been carried on in a slovenly," reckless, and careless manner." ■ ■

The plaintiff asserted that the partf*tl % *?¥■' With E^ers terminated with tho taking over of tho Hopper street property. "Pi^r Mr. Sievwright produced a statement purporting to show that the Karori Si h. em*L H£l<1 lesultod in a loss to th« i-ggers "-had-'given- tj.b;plaintiff credit for the £300, aud that tho amount reduced by this loss and otherß Lml The plaintiff said that he had not previously seen any statement relating to a loss t on tho Karori houses. 1 wo' receipts, each for £100, : We re Yr,fT d'T° from Khnan-^o Eggers! Thl the t}) Otlle 1 r .f rom Eggcrs to. Pifman r,rnr. n^ renC\? a tU° tW° H°PPer properties. No money had passed, and he understood that the £ 10 0 Pwas being used as deposit on the other property Kgl° ri\, h° 7 maintai»cd, had not men* tioned the loss on tho Karori houses when the £300 mortgage was arranged There was no arrangement that Ec£ors should pay ovor tho £300 when the plaintiff paid him any monoy ho owed

Evidonco was called to show that En-, gers had agreed to assign a £100 interest in a mortgage to the pl^ntiff in satisfaction of the claim for £100