OBJECTION UPHELD

Nelson Evening Mail, Volume LXIV, 31 March 1930, Page 4

OBJECTION UPHELD

LAND AGENT'S LICENSE

MAGISTRATE'S RESERVED JUDGMENT

At the Magistrate's Court this morning, Mr T. E. Maunseil, S.M., gave the following reserved judgment in respect to an application, by Clarence Smith for a renewal of his land agent's license, which application was objected to by John McLeod Ross, a late partner of Smith in a fish business.

"The application is objected to by one Koss, who alleges that, whilst the parties were in partnership in a fishmongery business. Smith used some of the partnership funds for his personal purposes without the objector's authority. The objector provided the capital for the venture (£3500) and the applicant was to manage the business. Smith admits using this money for his own personal purposes, but asserts that he had Ross's authority to do so, a fact which Ross denies. It is to be noted that the venture was essentially a business one and Smith's assertion that he had Ross's authority, even when Ross was absent from New Zealand, to use as much of Ross's money as lie liked, for his own private purposes whenever he liked without giving any security seems to me remarkable. He preserved no written recor- whatever of these appropriations. In three cases the cheque butt was filled in so as not to disclose that he had drawn them for his own personal use. In the remaining three cases his name appears but the words 'machinery a/c' were added, indicating that the money was spent in buying machinery for the business. In only one case was the money used for purchasing machinery for the business and then only a portion. Smith was quite unable to explain why he had inserted these words in the other cases. Difficulty in tracing the payments was calculated to be increased by Smith, instead of paying the .cheques into his own private account, cashing them into notes ranging from £1 to £SO.

"Smith agreed to keep proper books of account, but he absolutely failed to keep any books whatever. "Mr Farmer's investigations disclosed that in a number; of instances Smith paid accounts owing; by the partnership and received discounts. Smith told Mr Farmer that he had banked these, but investigation showed this to be untrue. His explanation in evidence as to the disposal of these discounts was very vague and unsatisfactory, viz: that he had used them for petty expenses or paid them to the woman in charge of the cash at the shop. Asked why he had not written cheques for the nett amount he stated that he did not know that discount would be allowed. But in some cases he had previously made payments and received discount. Moreover in one case a tradesman had rendered a large account and it was expressly stated at the foot that discount amounting to £7 12s 6d would be al : lowable if paid by a certain date; In spite of this Smith wrote out a cheque for the gross amount and received back the discount. He can neither account for his action nor for the disposal of the money to my satisfaction. "In the light of all this I have' to consider whether the applicant is of such a character that he is a fit and proper person to hold a land agent's license entitling him to handle largo sums of trust money. I must conclude that he is not. I realise that refusal of his application is a serious matter to him in that it jeopardises his means of livelihood, but I have to consider the protection of the public." • The Magistrate announced that the application would be refused but at the request of Mr H. Cheek adjourned finally disposing of the matter until 2nd June to enable Smith to wind up his uncompleted transactions. In fixing the costs the Magistrate said it was a question whether the objection was on account of personal reasons or in the public interest. However, counsel's fee £2 2s and witnesses expenses £1 Is were allowed, the Magistrate expressing the opinion that people were too loath in coming forward with objections such as this.

Mr W. V. Rout appeared for the objector. \