£ll68 In Fines For Land Sales Breaches

Northern Advocate, 24 July 1947, Page 6

£ll6B In Fines For Land Sales Breaches

(Special). KAIKOHE, This Day. A LENGTHY sitting and an unusually large audience marked yesterday’s Police Court in Kaikohe, preseided over by Mr W. C. Harley, S.M. Longest hearing was a two-barrelled case in which two Waipapa farmers, Walter Henry Knight and Robert Jurisich, were separately charged with having received large sums in excess of Land Sales Committee decisions on the sale of their properties. In Knight’s case, the amount quoted in the charge was £*97, but this was broken down to £7OB/8/9 after evidence had been presented showing certain permissible payments. In Jurisich’s case, the excess charged was £450. This figure was reduced for similar reasons to £432/18/9.

In the two separate prosecutions, three parties and two farms were concerned. After having heard all three parties in the witness-box, also the Land Sales Committee’s Crown representative and secretary (Mr L. A. Amodeo), the magistrate imposed heavy fines. Knight, who was represented by Mr J. H. Rose, of Auckland, pleaded guilty. He was fined £7lO, of which it was directed that £7OB should go to Jurisich. PLEA TWICE CHANGED

sich paid over to Knight the full amount (over and above mortgages) of the agreed price of £3657, which was £4O an acre.

Land Sales, however, reduced the price of Knight’s property to £2860 and Jurisich’s property to £1735. ASKED FOR DIFFERENCE Nexff move came some months later, when McKinnel’s solicitors wrote to Jurisich requesting a refund of the difference between the Land Sales and contractual prices. £450. Jurisich, who stated in evidence that he had already heavily indebted himself, could not find the money and requested the difference in the two prices for Knight’s former farm. Knight declined to refund and police investigations were started by Detec-tive-Sergeant J. B. Finlay, of Whangarei. Prosecuting, Detective-Sergeant Finlay referred to the over-payments as having been “under the lap payments."

Jurisich’s counsel, Mr H. F. Guy. of Kaikohe, asked leave to amend his plea of guilty to not guilty but, after all evidence had been heard, had it changed back to guilty. Jurisich was fined £458, of which it was directed that £405 should be refunded to the third party. Robert McKinnel, who was represented in court by Mr A. K. Turner, of Auckland. The prosecutions arose out of the sale last winter of two neighbouring farms. Knight sold to Jurisich and Jurisich sold to McKinnel. McKinnel wanted possession by July 2 and this was effected by Knight granting early possession to Jurisich, although the Land Sales hearings did not come up until early August.

Mr Rose said Knight had improved his farm until it was one of the best in the North, capable of producing at the present time 10,000 lbs. butterfat. He contended that the offence of Knight rested on his failure to refund and drew the conclusion that the act thus really meant that failure to pay a debt might be the basis of a criminal charge. Knight was now in the peculiar position of having lost an excellent farm and home at a figure which he would cdrtainly never have considered worth while.

McKinnel paid over cash to Jurisich the full agreed sale price of £2185, representing £35 an acre, while Juri-

The magistrate commented that he could see it only that the act provided that where a vendor received money wrongfully he would not be allowed to keep it. UNDER NEW REGULATIONS

Mr Guy said the prosecutions had been brought under regulations dated only a few days before completion—not starting—of the two transactions. It therefore became an almost unfair issue since the defendants woul<l not have been aware of the regulations. Two brief adjournments of the court were taken to consider aspects of the two cases. All three principal parties went into the witness-stand, both Jurisich and McKinnel being granted certificates against possibilities of incriminating evidence.

Giving judgment, the magistrate said it was a case of three ordinary laymen being guided largely by their professional consultants.

“It seems that some who have not appeared in these proceedings have not regarded the actions of their clients in the manner they should have,” he said. “Had they done so, and given full and free advice on certain aspects, the cases may never have come before the court.” '*

The fines 'and refund stipulations were then imposed as stated.