PURCHASE OF A FARM.

Otago Daily Times, Issue 19203, 20 June 1924, Page 6

PURCHASE OF A FARM.

AN ILLEGAL TRANSACTION. INTERESTING REVELATIONS. (Per United Press Association.) AUCKLAND. Juno 19. “It is no wonder that the returned soldiers fail in their farming ventures if the circumstances are similar to those hist, revealed,” said Mr Justice Stringer in the Supremo Court in delivering judgment in a case in which Joseph Walker Mcoro, of Pukekohe, claimed 13585 from 'Thomas Maxwell, of Marinarua, farmer, in respect to a promissory note and interest, or alternatively £541 14s 9d, the sum allegedly awarded to plaintiff by a land agent who acted as arbiter. Evidence was given to the effect that plaintiff gave an option to defendant and plaintiff’s brother, both returned soldiers, over the farm at £5950. Application was made to t lie. Land Hoard for an advance, but the board would not allow more than £3090, and would not, 'allow a second mortgage of £269. Plaintiff then alleged that defendant then suggested it, was customary for returned soldiers purchasing farms to get the vendors to accept promissory notes to cover the excess over an advance. This was accepted in two notes of £4BO. Each promissory note was disclaimed by defendant owing to a difference regarding an area of swamp land. Summing up, his Honor said that by refusal to entertain the proposal for a second mortgage the board showed it could not sanction an advance unless the balance of £960 were taken off the price. Plaintiff and defendant than concocted a letter to the board in which they professed to be prepared to accept the valuation of £SOOO. That was a false, and altogether improper statement, as they had made surreptitious arrangements, whereby the balance of £960 was secured to plaintiff by promissory notes. The. conclusion was that the parlies conspired together to make a fraudulent representation to the Government in order to obtain a loan. The transaction was illegal, and plaintiff had no legal claim, although defendant was equally a party to the deception. The Government made the fullest advance possible, and it. was its endeavour to see that no undue burdens were imposed by private agreements. Judgment was given for defendant, without costs.