Nominal Penalty For Sales Of Property Without A License

Northern Advocate, 13 April 1940, Page 2

Nominal Penalty For Sales Of Property Without A License

Robert Perry and Thomazena Perry, i trading as Perry and Perry, were charged at the Magistrate’s Court, Kaitaia, on Tuesday with holding t themselves out as land agents and with trading as land agents without being licensed. Mr J. B. Reynolds appeared for defendants. and on a plea of guilty being entered to the first charge, the second was withdrawn. Sergeant Simister said that on May 15, 1939, Mr Perry and his wife purchased from Mr N. L. Gurr a land agency business, and commenced trading as Perry and Perry. An agreement was drawn up, under which they were to have the right to carry on business as agents for Gurr, who was to remain in the business for three months. During that time threb sales were put through. Later, there was a slight disagreement with Gurr with regard to expenses, and Gurr would have nothing further to do with, the business. Altogether, five sales had been made, three in the name of Gurr and two by defendants. Sections had been advertised for sale by Perry and Perry, and sales were made by them as though they wei'e legally entitled to make them. Mr Reynolds said the case was not only one of ignorance, but misfortune, The whole position, he believed, had arisen as a result of a dispute with Mr Gurr in respect to certain moneys due under the agreement. The agreement drawn up by Mr Gurr had been put into legal form by Mr Bannister, amt it was sent to his clients for signature. They signed it \Vithout hav-

ing a separate solicitor. His clients thought they had acted within the law. Mr Gurr's name was on the window and his business cards were * distributed. It was only in January of this year that an advertisement appeared in the local paper over the name of “Perry and Perry.” Mr Gurr, who was a member of the Real Estate Institute, gave his clients to understand that they could carry on as his agents under his license. The license fee for the year had been paid, but in Mr Gurr's name. The revenue had not been defrauded. The license had not run out, and in due course his clients would apply for a license. The magistrate said he w r as prepared to accept the position as stated by counsel. The case was one for a nominal penalty only, but the need for observing the requirements of the Act had to be emphasised. Robert Perry would be fined £2 and costs j on the first charge. The charge against Mrs Perry was dismissed.