MORTGAGORS' REHABILITATION

Otago Daily Times, Issue 23299, 17 September 1937, Page 7

MORTGAGORS' REHABILITATION

TO THE EDITOH Sir,—ln your paper of the 10th inst. appeared a very interesting letter by "Witness" with reference to the absurdity of the manner in which the Mortgagors' Rehabilitation Act is being administered in Otngo. Tt will be found that solicitors who have had experience of it hold the view that the Otago Commission is administering the Act according to its own idea-of what the Act should be. It is only fair to say that one member of the commission is quite adverse to the majority of the orders of the commission, but one is not much use against two. There are three aspects of the Ace which weigh heavily against mortgagors. (1) As no publicity is allowed, mortgagees unblushingly make any false statements which might heln them This secrecy was no doubt intended for the benefit of the mortgagor, but it is safe to say that most applicants would welcome open hearings, as this would to a great extent prevent false evidence which unfortunately the commission appears to accept. (2) Cases arc unduly hurried. The applicant is

given no opportunity of proving the inaccuracy of statements made to the commission. Evidence cannot in most cases be disguised in cross-examina-tion. Surely in such important cases time should not be a limiting factor. Applicants also should not be restricted as to the number of witnesses. The Act clearly lays down that applicants may bring all the evidence they wish. In a recent case, owing to lack of time, the applicant was prevented from producing waiting witnesses. Needless to say, the order in this case, as in many other cases, was ridiculous in the extreme. (3) The applicant is aware that the mortgagee knows what his ground has produced and therefore is forced to submit his budget on actual facts. The mortgagee, on the other hand, is not so restricted, and doubles the productive capacity of the farm. As "Witness" says, this leads to a ridiculous result as the commission appears to follow the procedure of " splitting the difference. It is high time the Government took a hand in this matter. The present policy of the Otago Adjustment Commission is throwing undue work on the Court of Review, which has to rehear these cases.

One other point: Mr Nash has recently stated that farmers are entitled to £2OO per annum in addition to their house and whatever they can get off the farm for their own food. I think it safe to say that the commission in no case in Otago, whatever may be the local circumstances, has allowed an applicant anything near this figure. As part of his duty the writer has had to interview the Minister of Justice and other Ministers in connection with the working of this Act. It seems that the Government had great difficulty in finding unbiased persons who are capable of doing the work to serve on the commissions.—l am. etc., Justice.