LAND TRANSFER TITLES

New Zealand Herald, Volume LXX, Issue 21462, 8 April 1933, Page 14

LAND TRANSFER TITLES

BREACHES BY COMPANY LAW SOCIETY PROSECUTION MAGISTRATE IMPOSES FINES A company director, Lewis A. Tozer, bud the company with which he is associated, Pacific Union, Limited, were prosecuted before Mr. AY. B. Mclvean, S.M.. in the Police Court yesterday for allegedly committing a breach of section 216 /of the Land Transfer Act, The case was brought by the Aucklai/d/ District Law Society, for yhioh Mr. Blomfield appeared. The charge preferred against defendant was that, not being the holder of a land-broker's licence or certified on the roll of the Supreme Court as a barrister oif solicitor, ho wilfully and fasely pretended to be entitled to transact land transfer business. The chargo alleged -that defendant represented, in a circular to a farmer at Waipu, that the farmer's property was recorded at the Deeds Kepistry Office as being ready to be brought under the provisions of the land transfer system. It was fur-

ther contended that defendant repre-

sented that he was entitled to act on behalf of the farmer, and that, for payment, he would do all things necessary to obtain the issue of a land transfer title for his property. Mr Blomfield said defendant was manager of Pacific Union, Limited, and admitted the facts. He had sent circulars to a great many people and complaints had been received from legal interests at Hamilton, AVhangarei and Tauranga. The circular issued amounted to an undertaking that, for £l, with disbursements, defendant could and would obtain i land transfer title. Thero was the /representation that the company would do that, although such a title might be full of irregularities. Defendant had some experience, but ho was not, qualified to perform what was represented. Where an undertaking was represented, there was the implication that the company was qualified to carry out the transaction. In a statement to the Court, defendant said no conveyancing was done by the eompauj", which acted as an agent and merely received the registrar's minutes. Neither the company nor he would knowingly issue the circulars if they thought they were illegal. It was stated by Mr. Blomfield that

the society regarded .the matter as a serious one. As. far as ho knew, there • had not been any other prosecutions under the section. A fine of £lO wa3 imposed on defendant and a similar penalty was inflicted on the defendant company.