AUCTION SALES

Evening Post, Volume CVI, Issue 22, 27 July 1928, Page 10

AUCTION SALES

STIFFENING THE LAW KEEPING TRUST ACCOUNTS NEW BILL DEBATED ' The principles underlying tho Auctioneers Bill were explained to the House of Representatives last night by the Attorney-General (the Hon. 1\ J. Bolleston).' In moving the second reading, the Minister stated that the Bill not only consolidated the law, but brought it up to date. In some respects it made an important change in regard to the Ueonsing of auctioneers. That a revision of the law was necessary was manifest from the fact that this was tho first time for 37 years that the law in recard 'to auctioneers had been overhauled The Bill was the third main piece of legislation in regard to auctioneers in 86 years. The present fee of £40 for the licensing of auctioneers was nist feed in 1843. In many respects the existing law was archaic. The reason for revising the law was that m modern commerce there had been many changes, and it was necessary to define more strictly those to whom should be entrusted the privileges of selling goods by auction. Complaints had, been made of moneys not being accounted for, and there had been a certain amount of looseness on the part of those acting as auctioneers. That was one reason for amending tho scheme in regard to licensing. It was necessary to legislate in regard to itinerant auctioneers who were hero to-day and goiie to-morrow. That was an undesirable form of trading. Those setting themselves up as auctioneers should be subject to more control than existed at present. The licensing of auctioneers by,the local bodies had been found not to work too well because the local body had not always the means of ascertaining the nature of the person to whom the license was being granted. The Bill made provision for licensing-in a different way and for ensuring that only fit and proper persons would be licensed. Tho way in which that could be achieved was to bring the licensing of auctioneers under the same principle as was adopted in regard to land agents. An auctioneer would have to apply to a Magistrate for a license, and would have to provide a bond for £500 in the same way as land agents. The license fees would still go to the local bodies, who would be'relieved of the obligation of' issuing licenses and would, thus be saved a certain amount of administrative expense. ' Mr. M. J. Savage (Auckland West): "They'will bo relieved of the fees later on!" EVIDENCE TO BE HEARD. Tho Minister replied that there was no suggestion of that. Ho proposed that the Bill should go to the Statutes Bevision Committee so that anyone who wished to do so could make reasonable representations in regard to it. The license fee would be payable to the local body of the district in "which the person authorised to sell by license had his place of business. In reply to questions, Mr. Kolleston said that if they could have a better and more equitable means of distributing the license fees the Department was quite prepared to adopt it. They did not want to take the fees away from any local body,; and they were prepared to give consideration to any workable scheme. The charge for administration would not be very much. An important clause in the Bill was that providing for the keeping of a trust account. . That was an improvement on the existing law, and he did not think that objection could be made to it. At present it was. only necessary to keep a trust account in regard to real estate. Mr. M. J. Savage (Auckland .West) expressed gratification at the announcement by tho Minister that he would refer the Bill to a Committee, as there were a number of people who would be affected by its provisions. Mr. A. ■■ Harris (Waitemata) urged that churches should bo exempted from the provisions of tho Bill. Mr. W. A. Veitch (Wanganui) said he desired to draw attention to the lack of uniformity in the legislation affecting people who handled other people's goods and other people's money. Conditions affecting auctioneers were being tightened up, but in the case of solicitors, who handled much greater sums of money than auctioneers, no change of control was proposed. The whole question would have to be considered, possibly in the direction of providing for the establishment of guarantee funds. Mr. D. Jones (Ellesmerc) urged that the Minister, should'consider inserting a.clause in the Bill providing that auctioneers at stock sales should be compelled to announce tho name of the vendor and of tho purchaser of the stock. This would go a long way towards protecting the farmer. Mr. Jones ; also suggested that further consideration should be given to the proposals regarding the trust account :to be established by stock auctioneers. They would mean that stock firms would have to keep a large credit account at the bank, and that credit would havo to be provided by the producers of the Dominion. .Mr. D. G. Sullivan (Avon) suggested that the Bill might have the effect of whittling away the powers of local bodies. The tendency should bo in the other direction.! NOT PERFECT. Mr. J. B. Hamilton (Awarua), while congratulating the Minister on the,introduction of the Bill, said it was not perfect, and ho would tnke steps in Committee to amend it in certain directions. He thought the present system covering the payment of auctioneers' licenses was inequitable, as all the fees went to the towns in spite of the fact that the auctioneers did much of their work in the country districts. Mr. Hamilton said he would object to the Minister being given unlimited power to make regulations under the Bill when placed on the Statute Book; they wanted to know exactly what was proposed before the Bill went through tho House. Mr. A. Hamilton (Wallace) said in general he agreed with the idea of trust funds, but he did not think it would be practicable in the case of auctioneers. A farmer did not need to deal with a firm regarding which he entertained suspicions. Mr. T. Forsyth (Wellington East) expressed the. hope that the Minister would not give way in regard to the proposed trust accounts. Replying to the discussion, the Minister said that occasion might arise where a bank might refuse to pay out the money which an auctioneer held on" behalf of clients if his account happened to be overdrawn. Mr. A. Hamilton: "Suppose the client owes the auctioneer some money?" Mr. Bolleston: "Then tho money belongs to the auctioneer and not to the client. It would be his own money. Probably it would not be necessary to pay that into a trust account, but where ho has received money on behalf of a client o f yjer which he has; no claim whatever it seems to mo somewhat dangerous that lie should be allowed to pay that into a bank account to reduce that auctioneer's overdraft." He was prepared to consMcr the points raised in with this matter, because there was no desire to impose hardship on auctioneers and increase their expenses. The Bill was rend :i second lime and referred to the Statutes Revision Committee.