Alleged Dummyism in Otago.

Otago Witness, Issue 1639, 21 April 1883, Page 12

Alleged Dummyism in Otago.

The following correspondence appears under the above heading in the columns of the Hobart Mercury of 11th April :— Sir, — In the columns of your issue of to-day there appears under the above heading an extract from the Otago Daily Times, wherein certain reckless and damaging statements are mads respecting us which we declare to be untrue. We are alleged to be dummies upon the ground, that the cheques given for the pur-chase-money were those of the New Zealand Agency Company, and not money paid by us. Had we thought that any objection would have been raised to our employing tho Agency Company to pay for us, we would have taken the money in our hands aud paid for it at the sale. The Otago Waste Lands Board advertised tho sale of land to take place on the 28th February. We left here and arrived at Dunedin 10 days before the sale, and received such information of the land we bought, from friends who knew it thoroughly, as made it unnecessary for us to inspect it carefully, as we otherwise would have done. We attended the sale, bought the land, paid the deposit, made the necessary declarations of being honafide purchasers, and did all that the Waste Lands Act required of us, and therefore we indignantly deny the statement that we are dummies, and we think we have reason to complain of the way we are treated by the Otago Waste Lands Board and the Otago newspapers. — Yours, &c,

William Young. Philip Young.

Clarence, April 9fch, 1883.

[The extract referred to was taken from the auctioneer's report, as submitted to the Otago Waste Lands Board and embodied in the report of proceedings at the Board's meeting, published in the Otago Daily Times. — Ed. M.]

In the Southern Star of the same day the following letter on the same subject appears :—: —

Sir,— The readers of your contemporary must have perused with interest its recent extracts from the Ofcago Daily Times in reference to the charges of rJumrayism against certain parties in Tasmania and New Zealand. The editor's ' footnote to the letter of Messrs William and Philip Young, published in to-day's impression of , that journal, is strictly correct, and the statements in the New Zealand paper are so specific and circumstantial that, the New Zealand authorities have been called upon by more than one journalist to sift these charges to the bottom, in order to check, if possible, a nefarious practice which necessarily greatly retards the settlement of a new country, and demoralises employers and employed in the business of making false declarations for the purpose of fraudulently evading the provisions of an Act of Parliament. The correspondents referred to (Messrs William and JPhilip Young) appear to be of the same opinion,, and hence their apparent desire to clear themselves from any suspicion of having been engaged in any such practices. Their letter I have carefully read, and note that they state that they left here (Hobart), arrived at Dunedin 10 days before the sale, and received such information of the land they bought from friends who knew it thoroughly, and so " made it unnecessary for them to inspect it carefully, as they otherwise would have done. "We attended (they say) the sale, bought the land, paid the deposit, made the necessary declarations of being bona fide purchasers, and did all that the Waste Lands Act required of us ; and, therefore, we indignantly deny the statement that we are dummies, and we think we have reason to complain of the way we are treated by the Otago Waste Lands Board and tho Otago newspapers." Indignation is a noble sentiment where it is felt and expressed by unjustly assailed virtue, I shall sympathise, therefore, with the above indignant ones, if they are prepared to add something as follows to their statement already made, and put such addition in a statutory declaration made in Dunedin, and then proceed to Dunedin to defend, as they have a right to do, their claim to the land they state they have honetttly bought. First, then, I would presume to ask whether their trip from Hobart to Dunedin was at their own expense? Who were "the friends" from whom they " received such information of the land they bought as made it unnecessary for them to inspect it carefully, as they otherwise would have done ?" Where, and in the immediate neighbourhood of whose runs (giving the name) is this land situate? Do these runs belong to a firm in which divers magnates in Tasmania, and a lawyer in Dunedin, are interested as partners ? Did one of these Tasmanian magnates, by a curious coincidence, proceed from Hobart to Dunedin at or about the same time as the > Messrs Young? Was there any communication between this magnate and themselves, either before or after such departure and arrival, touching these lands? Was this magnate one of the kind and trustworthy friends from whom the Messrs Young received the information that he (tho Tasraanian) knew the land thoroughly? Did Meßßrs Young take their own money to Dunedin from Hobart Lo pay for the land, and did they band such money to 'Hhe New Zealand

Agency Company," wherewith to pay for the land? What is the declaration they made? Did it contain any statement that it was a bana fide purchase on their own account? Is there a coudition that the purchaser shall reside for a certain term on the land ? Are the Messrs Young going so to reside ? If bo, how is that so recently after this purchase they have returned straight to Hobart, and now give their address (I presume their residentiary address) Clarence ? Is it their intention to return to and reside on the land ? Are they aware that one of the kind " friends," whose thorough knowledge of the land made it unnecessary to " inspect it carefully " (did they inspect it all) was a Tasmanian settler, and that he was referred to, all but by name, in the Otago Times, as implicated as a principal in the scandalous business, and that, instead of acting like Mesßrs Young, by " indignantly denying the statement," and calling the Otago Daily Times to account, made his way back to Tasmania with most politic alacrity, prompted apparently by the very wholesome consideration that the least said is soonest mended? When the above few queries for the present are met as above proposed, we may be more sympathetically impressed by Messrs Young's "indignant denial." That indignation at present seems merely to rest on their statement that " they attended the sale, bought the land, paid th« deposit, made the necessary declarations of being bona fide purchasers, and did all that the Waste Lands Act required of us." Excellent so far as it goes. But Messrs Young seem to have been so far carried away by their indignation as not to have perceived that the above acting 3 are precisely what takes place in all cases of dummyism, without which the operation would fail altogether, of securing the purpose of the perpetrator. Further and better particulars, therefore, will not only be awaited by the " Otago Waste Lands Board," but by your obedient servant " behind the Bceneß,"

Inqtjibeb.