THE MELBOURNE BOOM.

Gisborne Standard and Cook County Gazette, Volume II, Issue 230, 4 December 1888, Page 2

THE MELBOURNE BOOM.

THE IMPENDING CRASH.

AN INSIGHT INTO LAND JOBBING. Melbourne, Nov 20. A most decided cheek has occurred to all speculation, and the 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 tbo-e who are engaged deeply in real property business, and in numerous companies brought out during the year. The indications point to a cominuanee of a rather tight money market for some time to come, at least the large liabilities assumed by the pub ic have been preity well liq ndated. An action has bean commenced, in which two leading land speculators are engaged, and the details give an insight into the methods of la id jobbing which have prevailed of late. Mr Jas. Mirams, M.L A., sue« Mr David Monro, contractor, to recover £15,000 on an ove due hill of exchange. The bill was drawn by Mr Mirams on Mr Munro on July 7th last at four months. Il was acctp ed by Mr Mumo, payable at the National Bank of Australa-iu. It wai not paid, and Mr Mirams brought an action to recover the amount. Ye 4 rday an application was made to Mr Justice Kerferd, in Chambers, on behalf of Mr Munro, for leave to d fend the action. If leave is not given to d feud a plaintiff is entitled to sign judgment. In the application for leave to defencMKlr Munro made the following affidavit,knitting the formal parts: —In 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 Burke, which, he stated to me, he wished to purchase on behalf of himself aud 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 who were associated with him, he would only buy I could give him £15,000 for himself or about £lO per acre less than tho price disclosed in enntraot. to sell Mm-the land at £loT?!ouand 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 £31,935, being the amount of the first three promissory notes to bu given by him in part payment of the purchase money, were paid. The first promissory note for £lOOO given by the plaintiff in part payment of the purchase money, fell due on thr |loth November, and was dishonored on Its due date, but has subsequently been paid ; but no further part of the «aid purchase money has been paid as cash deposit or otherwise. A week before the acceptance sued on became due I -aw 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 application for leave to defeu l is made bona fide, and not for the purpose of delay. The leave to defend the action was granted.