TRANSFER OF FARM

Otago Daily Times, Issue 25457, 11 February 1944, Page 4

TRANSFER OF FARM

SUITABLE FOR SOLDIER SETTLEMENT BASIC VALUE FIXED When the case came before the Otago Land Sales Committee yesterday afternoon in which William John Dundass sought to transfer his farm property in the Poolburn district to Thomas Adam Arthur, for £7500, the representative of the Crown, Mr W. J. Mathers, said that he proposed to call evidence that the property might be suitable for acquisition by the Crown for settlement by discharged servicemen This was the first case of its kind in Otago under the special provisions of the Servicemen’s Settlement and Land Sales Act of last year The vendor was represented by Mr I. Ftdsgi 4 The members of the committee present were Messrs E. J. Anderson (chairman), D. J. Ross, and Neil McNamara. Case for Vendor Mr Fraser said the property was a Cheat) one. both the land and the stock beine offered at below their true value. The vendor had purchased the property for £7BOO, and a number of improvements had been carried out. The vendor, he said, was the brother-in-law of the purchaser, and he was not compelled to sell the farm because of financial reasons, as he had made a success of it. “ The purchaser,” counsel continued, •is well aware that the property is capable of improvement, and that production could be increased by 50 per cent.” The vendor had for years received a high return from his wool, and the lambing percentages were between 115 to 120 per cent. Expenses had been very low, but it was recognised that additions might have to be made to the three-roomed cottage on the property, and that a wool shed and yards would have to be constructed, the cost of these being estimated at £IOOO. The land could be subdivided into three blocks. , . , The purchaser, counsel continued, had two sons serving overseas, the younger bov having been employed on the farm before he left, and the other was anxious to take up farming on his return. The purchaser had not been able to find all the money required himself, but a friend was prepared to enter into a partnership agreement with him, and they would share the profits. The partner had agreed to withdraw when the sons returned. Counsel stated that there would be no difficulty on that point If there was any dispute over the price to be paid it had been agreed that the matter should be settled by arbitration. It was a question, however, whether the purchaser would agree to the transfer to his sons until they had found their feet. Mr Fraser added that there was no suggestion of " dummyism ” in the transaction. Asked how the Crown would view the partnership agreement, Mr Mathers said toe matter would be referred to the department concerned in Wellington, and he added that it might not want to acquire the property if it could be established that it was wanted by the two soldier sons °^The e chairman pointed out that the committee was concerned only with fixing the basic value, but it would place all the relevant facts before the department. Crown Valuer’s Statement For the Crown, a statement was submitted by John Murray Macdonald, Crown valuer. In reply to a question by Mr Fraser, witness said that, in his opinion the property was not worth more than £ Mr° Mathers said that on the budget submitted by Mr Macdonald the sum of £6600 was fair value for the property, exclusive of stock and chattels. In reply, Mr Fraser said the property had actually cost the vendor £B3OO, and he hoped the committee would base its decision on that fact. . The basic value of the land was fixed at £6600. The following transaction was apPr james~ McDonald to Ormond William Greenslade, farm property, Shotover; purchase price, £8650 (land £4300, stock £3350, chattels £650, run £350)