PROPERTY LAW CONSOLIDATION ACT.

New Zealand Herald, Volume XXIX, Issue 8948, 4 August 1892, Page 3

PROPERTY LAW CONSOLIDATION ACT.

TO THE EDITOR. Sir,—Your correspondent, " E.W.," in this morning's Herald, asks why a person lending money on freehold security should be placed in a " more favourable position than a pawnbroker who lends money on a watch or any other personal property.' Now, a pawnbroker is allowed by law to charge at the rate of 80 per cent, interest on sums up to £10, and 50 per cent, interest on sums over that amount. He also has the right to sell his securities by auction if they remain unredeemed six months. Surely E.W." must be jesting when he wishes to place a mortgagee of freehold property in the same position as a pawnbroker. Why, the auctioneers, conveyancers, and financial agents would make fortunes in a few years if they had the same properties through their hands every six months; and the mortgagee would double his money every eighteen months. He would seldom lose money, as he could easily gage the value of freehold securities six months ahead, while now, when he lends money for terms up to ten years, his calculations often get upset by depression, or even "wild cat" legislation such as "E.W." advocates. If the lender on freehold security is placed on the same footing as the pawnbroker, what will become of the poor borrower ? It is very hard for us to think that "E.W." can have taken the poor borrower's case into consideration at all, for we really, do not like to think that M W." or

anyone else could be so hard-hearted as to condemn him to pay 60 per cent, when he can now get money for 6 per cent, interest. If investors are certain that their money will be returned when due they are willing to lend at a low interest; but as the security gets " shaky " the interest gets higher^—We are, &c., Reginald Beaumont and Co. Shortland-street, August 2,1892.

TO THE EDITOR. Sir,-There is no doubt the proposals embodied in the above Bill are such tnat a eood deal can be said on both sides. Considerable abuse has occurred in manipulating the sales of mortgaged property by persons foreclosing. One instance I particularly pointed out some years since, viz., bald and unintelligible advertisements, by which the merest outline of particulars is given— sufficient for the vendor, but Greek to others. lam not writing this in the newspaper interest, but as a matter of fact. By such means property falls into the hands .of the mortgagor at a nominal price, and the mortgagee is held liable for all time for the balance. On the other hand, the effect must be to raise the price of money and render it difficult to raise moneys on mortage, and the borrower may be certain that the moment he is behind with his interest, his property will be at once ruthlessly sacrificed, and the greater the difficulties put in the way of bona fida borrowers, the less work for people and the fewest possible improvements, so that it is very doubtful if any such Act is needed, or will do any practical good. Abolition of disti ess for rent, or priority of claim for landlords, would be a far more just measure.—l am, &c., Practical.