POST-SESSIONAL

Grey River Argus, 15 January 1925, Page 7

POST-SESSIONAL

MR. HOLLAND’S ADDRESSES On Saturday evening last, in front of the Westport Town Hall, Mr H. E. Holland, M.P., delivered a post-session al address to a large audience, Mr J. Menzies (Mayor) presiding. Mr Holland received a splendid hearing, and at the* conclusion of his address was accorded a vote of thanks by acclamation, on the motion of the Mayor, seconded, by Mr W. Caldwell. Mortgages Extension.

Among the matters dealt with by Mr Holland was the mortgages Final Ex- • tension Bill. He drew attention to the fact that at March 31, 1924, the total value of the mortgages registered in New Zealand was £258,207,840 —a net increase of £15,615,907 during the year 1923-24. iSuch of these mortgages as were executed before October 24, 191.’, were covered by the Moratorium Act, which was duo to expire on December 31, 1924; and, consequently, to obviate the financial and consequent economic disarrangement which would follow a sudden wholesale calling up of the mortgages. the Mortgages Final Extension Bill was introduced in August last. For the main principle of the Bill, the Labour Party sought to substitute a set of proposals providing that, in the case of mortgages not discharged or renewed. rc-valuatious should be made with the object of ascertaining the productive value of both lands and securities and the taking over of the mortgages by the State on a basis of real value—the valuations to be con ducted by District Boards consisting of one representative each of the mortgagees and mortgagors, and three appointed by the Government, one of the latter to be chairman. For the put pose of financing transfers of mortgages from the present mortgagees to the State, lhe Minister of Finance was to have power to provide up to £6,000.000 in any one year. The aggregate value of the undischarged mortgages not taken over by the State was to be ascertained in the manner provided, and the Moratorium in these cases was to be extended for whatever period should be necessary to enable the State to take over such mortgages at a rate not exceeding £6,000,000 per annum. Any mortgagee who was a practical farmer was to have the right to appeal to a Land Court, and the Court was to have power to give him possession provided he furnished proof that he bona fide intended to occupv the land ana work it. and also provided that the mortgagor was allowed equitable

consideration on account of deposit and other payments (not including inter-

eat) made in respect of the mortgage, and also for assessable improvements

made during his occupancy. The proposed Land Court wa s to consist of one representative nominated by the mortgagees, one nominated by the mortgagors, in the Laud Disrtict in which the land was situated, and a. Judge of the •Supreme Court, who would be chairman. Where a mortgage remained undischarged, am] had not been renewed or transferred to the State, the mortgagor was to have the right to remain in possession or payment of a rate of interest not exceeding six per cent, per annum on tin 1 value of the mortgage in reduced ratio to the capital value arrived at by the District Valuation Board provided, of course, that the mortgagee if a practical farmer, should have the right to be granted possession on the terms already named and further provided that at any time the State should have the power to take over the mortgage • This amendment was ruled out as being foreign to the Bill; but ultimately some of its features were embodied in the Government’s Bill. As the measure was finally passed, it gave the Court power to extend the date for the pavement of moneys due under mortgages affected by the Moratorium; but no extension order was to be made unless it was applied for by the mortgagor. This, he considered, was wrong in principle. It should have been the other veay about. The mort gagor must now file his notice of motion before January 31, 1925, for an extension order. No extension order could, however, extend the date beyond March 31, 1927. Until March 31, 1925, it would not be lawful for a mortgagee under a mortgage to which the 1924 Act applied, to call up or demand payment from any mortgagor of the prin cipal sum secured by any such mortgage nor to exercise any ower of sale or entry into possession, notwithstanding that such power may have been conferred by cither mortgage or statute. Chattels Transfer. The second reading of the Chattels Transfer Amendment Bill was reached on October 20. As originally introduced, one of the “clauses of this Bill pro vidcd that a bill of sale should be held to cover all the live stock on the holding of the grantor. Thus, a settler might raise a. loan on the security of his cattle, and eventually find that the lien covered his sheep, horses, goats, pigs, and poultry, etc. Along with other Members he (Mr Holland) opposed thi s clause while the Bill was before the Statutes Revision Committee and

also when it was before the House. Eventually the Government agreed to reconstruct the clause so as to provide that the bill of sale should *only cover the particular class of stock mentioned