LAWYER ACQUITTED

Greymouth Evening Star, 22 May 1925, Page 5

LAWYER ACQUITTED

STAMP DUTIES CASE. , z NO FRAUDULENT) INTENT (Per Press Association.) ; CHRISTCHURCH, May 22. “Taking all the circumstances into account, I am unable to find that th'c defendant acted with fraudulent intent in being a party to or concerned in the transfer in the form in which it went through,” said Mr Wyvern Wilson, S.M., in the.-Magistrate’s Court this morning, in dismissing the information against Leslie Arthur Dougall, charged with a breach of the Stamp Duty Act. “Defendant,” said the Magistrate, “consulted his partners and consulted Mr Wilding. He was advised by Mr Wilding and advised by his father. It seems to me that he must be absolved from any criminal intent.” The charge against Frederick Wilding i,s now /proceeding.

At the opening of' the case, Mr Macassey, who prosecuted, stated that the facts of the case were that Bowron Bros., Ltd., sold a farm known as Clifton Falls to W. G. Stevens for £31,241. That was sold in September, 1917. An agreement for sale was prepared on October 1, 1917. Stevens signed the agreement and entered into possession, and Stevens said he paid duty to Cook, the land agent. y He remained there till April, 1921, paying rates and land tax. He subsequently informed Bowron Bros, that he was unable to cany on. On October 17,. 1918 j. the agreement was re-engrossed. That agreement was dated February 18, 1918. Counsel quoted the agreement ’ between Bowron Bras, and Stevens. The purchaser went into possession in September, 1917, and remained there till April, 1921. Stevens alleged that he paid £3OO stamp duty to Cook, That agreement between Bowron Bros, and Stevens was never cancelled, but Stevens, with the consent of Bowron.Bros, entered into an agreement with* Aiming Bros, to exchange the property for Cook Rock. The purchase price was £34,530, subject to existing mortgages. In the agreement one Boag was mentioned as the owner, he having, counsel understood, held the property before Bowron Bros. There were two reasons why the agreement was signed by Boag. They thought that Boag was still in the titele and the agreement purported to be an arepment between Boag and Anning, leaving out Stevens and Bowron Bros. '

Mr* Macassey said that , though Boag signed the Agreement it was Stevens’ agreement. Anning Bros - , entered into Clifton Falls. By an agreement between Stevens, Bowron Bros., and the trustees of the late W. G. Bowron, the latter took over Stevens’ interest in Cook Rock. Anning Bros, sold to W. J, Campbell at £22,039 6s 6d, subject to £16,500 mortgage to th\2 A.M.P. Society; £2OOO mortgage to Ryan Bros., and £1786 6s, the amount owing by Aiming Bros, to Stevens. By way of exchange Anning Bros, agreed to purcha.se Campbell’s, Chelsea property for £14,500, subject to mortgages totalling £14,483 6s 6d. Both parties entered into possession under that agreement. He wished to point out at this stage that there had been a sale from Bowron Bros, 'to Stevens of Clifton Falls, a sale by Stevens without the approval Btos. to Anning Bros, of Clifton Falls, and a sale by Stevens with the aproval of Bowron Bros, to Anning Bros. There had been a sale by Anning Bras, to Campbell to Clifton Falls. The other two properties mentioned did not come into it except to show that the sales were by way of exchange. In each case' the parties went into possession. Stevens was in possession for four years, and Anning B ros> ' from April, 1921, till about August, 1923. Mr Dougall was acting for Campbell and Mr Wilding for Anning Bros, and Bowron Bros.

Mr Macassey said-,Bowron Bros., by a further agreement, offered to sell direct to Campbell, and he contended that that document was substituted for the express purpose of avoiding the recital that should have been made in the transfer of the other transactions, with a view to avoiding the payment of stamp duty. The amounts due were : Sale bv Bowron Bros, to Stevens £312 10s, penalty £312 10s; sale by Stevens to Aiming Bros. £345 10s, penalty £345 10s; sale Jjy Anning Bros, to Stevens Bowron Bios. to.make an offer to .sell £179, penalty £179. What right had Bowron Bros, to make an offer to sell direct to Campbell ? Bowron Bros, had no interest in the property. There had never been any cancellation of the agreement, said Mr Macassey. One person . after anothp” had gone into possession of the property, in each case with the approval of Bowron Bros., andythe agreements Were valid and enforceable agreements. That being the position the question was what, when the last transaction with CampbeH was__executed, was Leslie DougalT's knowledge of the subject? .He knew that Anning Bros, had made a contract with Campbell and not with Bowron Bros., that the offer made by Bowrons to Campbell was not a genuine one, and that they did not even communicate to Campbell the®effect of the l offer. No doubt as solicitor for Campbell, Dougall had authority to execute all the necessary documents. This transaction was not a bona fide transaction, said Sir Macassey. Mr Dougall knew that both parties had entered into possession, both the Annings and Campbell. Mr Dougall must have known that these agreements had never been cancelled. He knew that the Annings must have been parties to tli£ transfer because he actually put them into the transfer that he sent to Wilding and Acland. At a meeting between Mr .Grainger, Dougall and the.' Annings some question arose about the payment of stamp duty.' Anning Bros, had already paid a cheque to Wilding and Acland for the stamp duty and they expressly stated that they would not pay double He was prepared to pay one lot. Mr Macassey suggested that that was ths reason why this transfer was put through in this form, because the Anning Bros, were, unwilling to pay any further duty except their own. It was to avoid paying that amount that the transfer was put through in the way it was. Mr Leslie Dougall had referred this question of transfer to Mr Unham.' Mr Dougall informed Mr Upham that Wilding and Acland wanted to put the transfer through without reciting the sale from Bowron Bros, to Stevens and from Stevens to the Anning Bros. Mr Upham told Mr Dougall that these agreements must be recited on the transfer and the' transfer could not be made unless they were recited. There was no suggestion by Mr Dougall that it was proper to leave out tlm recital of cither one or both of thase transactions. Neverthe-

less, after receiving that advice from Mr Upham the transfer was put through without the recital. A little later Mr Upham mentioned the fact of this transfer to Mr Dougall and found out that the transfer had gone through direct from Bowron Brothers to Campbell, and Mr Dougall never even then asserted that it was quite proper or legal to put the transfer through in that form and gave no reason why the transfer was omitted and nover suggested that these two other agreements had been cancelled.