Adjustment of Mortgages

Manawatu Times, Volume 63, Issue 82, 7 April 1938, Page 5

Adjustment of Mortgages

ATTITUDE OF STATE DEPARTMENTS The attitude of State Departments in regard to the adjustment of mortgages is a subject in which the Manawatu provincial executive of the Farmers’ Union is interesting itself. Recently the executive advised the Dominion executive that the manner in which Government departments were acting as mortgagees had been discussed, and the opinion expressed that the departments in this district were doing their utmost to get their last penny from applications. "It was thought,” the local executive’s letterstated, “that, in view of the large number of appeals to come before the Court of Review, aud the fact that the one Court in existence could not adequately deal with those applications in a reasonable time, with consequent serious hardship to the applicants, a delegation should immediately wait on the Minister of Finance with the object of pressing for the setting up of additional Courts of "Review, as provided for in the Act.” lu reply, the Dominion executive forwarded the following letter from the Under-Secretary of Justice, which came before the Manawatu executive yesterday: “With regard to the attitude of mortgagee departments of State, I am not aware that the representations made in this connection aro in accordance with fact, but in any case the Justice Department could not interfere in this matter with any more propriety than it could as between party and party in any other civil proceeding. Further, the final word does not rest with the mortgagee departments concerned, but with the Adjustment Commissions or Court of Review, which are the proper authorities to which any representations should be made by the parties affected. Regarding the Court of Review, the question of the necessity for setting up a second Court will be carefully considered, but you will appreciate that, if one Court can cope with tho work, this will result in the very great advantage of ensuring uniformity of decision.” The chairman (Mr. H. J. McLeavey) said the various Government departments were not co-operating 100 per cent, with the spirit of the legislation. When the decisions of the commissions went against them, they appealed, whereas private individuals accepted the findings. An additional Court of Review was necessary to facilitate settlements. On the motion of the chairman, seconded by Mr. C. P. Jensen, it was decided that a deputation should wait on the Minister.