A DEAL IN LAND

Poverty Bay Herald, Volume LV, Issue 17116, 23 November 1929, Page 18

A DEAL IN LAND

MOTION TO SET ASIDE SUPREME COURT HEARING The motion to set aside certain transactions in the bankrupt estate of Hugh Telford occupied the attention of tlie .Supreme Court until a late hour yesterday, the court resuming after tin 1 dinner adjournment. The mot ion was made by Samuel Kirkpatrick, who was represented by Mr. H. E. O’Leary, of Wellington, with him Mr. T. A. Ooiemun. The portion of the motion,

which was hoard late iii the afternoon, concerned the sale of land. Mr. U. (/..ok, of Wellington, and Mr. D. E. Ohiisp. appeared for Mr. Richmond; Mr I. T. Buriiar.l for Mr. I’alairet; and Mr. J. S. Wauchop and Mr. H. D. Ohrisp, for Mr. William Bennett, a second mortgagee.

The average value per head of the sheep, .added the witness Haul Desmond Ifuddeii, would he up to 30s. There were also on the property 270 breeding cows, valued at about £lO a head, 270 or 200 weatiers valued at £0 ]Os, 99 steers at £ll, 00 nr 70 other steers a| £0 10s or £7, and about. 29 lmifers at £5 10s. Witness remained mi the property after Mr. Richmond thought it, and witness said there was no more than the usual movement of stock on the property. When witness was discussing with Mr. Richmond the mortgagee’s- sale prior to the date of the event, witness had advised Mr. Richmond to have nothing to do .with ■ it, advising him to consult a solicitor. Mr. Telford was not here at the time of the sale, but when he returned he gave witness instructions as before. Stock sold had been taken off both properties. A total of 99 bullocks were sold at £ll, 100 woaners at from £0 to £0 10s, dry cows at about £7 or £7 as, 1200 wethers after shearing for about 235, 1-100 or 1500 lambs at 12s to 12s tfil,. ami also ewes. About 200 bales were shorn. When witness"left in July, there was practically no stock on Kirkpatrick’s property, while Richmond’s was well stocked. To Mr. Cook witness said Mr. Barnard had spoken to .Richmond, who had been advised by Mr. Burnard to buy the property. Witness had suggested that Mr. Richmond should consult someone else other than L\lr. Burmud, as Mr. Burnard wa.s acting for Mr. Telford. Witness added that he know Mr. Burnard was also Mr. Richmond ’s lawyer.

.Mr. Cook: Did you think Mr. Burnard would work for the uncle to get one on to the tiephew. Witness: 1 thought so at the time. Then do you suggest, that Mr. Burnard is a -rogue?—Would it be libel if 1 answered that question, your Honor?

Il is Honor said witness need not answer the question unless he wished. \Jlnrry Christie Wells, stock agent anil auctioneer, said that in November, .]9i2B, a flock of mixed sheep in woo! and with lambs should have been worth 27s or 27s Gd. The breeding rows should have been worth from £7 10s to £7 15s, yearlings £5 5s to £5 Ids, 2 and 3-year-old steers an average of about. £B, big bullocks of from three to four-year-old £9 to £9 ; 5s if they were good, heifers about two years old £5 ss.

To Mr. Cook, witness said that in October, 1928, the values of all stock rose rapidly.

Mr. Cook maintained that intent on the part of the purchaser must he proved, but counsel maintained that this’could not be so. Tlie sale was by public auction, and Mr. Richmond’s bid was the on 1 v one made. Mr.

Kirkpatrick was present. 11 is Honor said the contention was that the .sale was a sham; that Mr. I’alniret, being Mr. Telford’s friend, had put fne property) up for sale, and that Mr. Richmond was put up as a htivcv.

Mr. O’Leary: That is so. Mr. Conk .submitted" that there was no oviib lice of that. All of the formalities of the statute had been complied "with, and Mr. Richmond was the only bidder. What Would he the reason for that? Mr O’Leary: Because the properties were put up as a whole. Mr. Cook said that was the usual custom. If fraud was established bv other parties, the registrar must also be included as a party to the fraud, submitted .counsel. ME Wauchop said. Mr. Bennett was an absentee mortgagee, now in Now South Wales. He was a second n ortgagee of the mortgage Mr. .I’alairet was originally in. Air. Bennett also had tlie mortgage over certain leasehold lands. At the time of Mr. ißalaite!’s sale the mortgage was overdue and most of the leasehold had expired, and Mr. Bennett’s security -was fast diminishing. Pressure was put on Mr. Richmond for further security, with the result that on -March 28, 1929, a second 'mortgage was given over the stock by Mr. Richmond to Mr. Bennett, the stock being subject to ft first mortgage .to the - Bank of Australasia. By the Work mortgage the mortgage over the .freehold land was extended for Jive years. These facts were admitted bv Mr.

O ’'Leary. Mr. Wauchop asked if the sale to Mr. Richmond was declared void* what position would Mr. Bennett he in? To declare the sales to Mr. Richmond null and void they would have to have the strongest and most cogent evidence of conspiracy. Mr. O’Leary admitted authorities quoted by Mr. Wauchop 1o the effect that, if the result went against dei fondant, Mr. Bennett must be proj tec ted. His Honor said that on the admission of Air. O’Leary, Air. Bennett’s position would have to be protected. There appeared to he no difficulty of working things out to preserve these rights.

Leonard Thomas Burnard Said he was the solicitor for Messrs. Scott ami Telford, Mr. Richmond, Air. Palairet and the Bank of Australasia. About tlie beginning of March, 1928, Mr. Palairet saw witness’ linn regarding a contributory second mortgage he held. At that time tlie fact that Scott, and Telford had become pressed for a large sum of money had become known, The mortgage was over partly freehold and partly expiring leasehold land. AH. Palairet

and Mr. Telford had known each other, but it was many years since they had spoken to each other.

His Honor: Were they friends?— No. Mr. Cook: And they did not have conversations in your presence?—No.

Witness said that Mr. I’alairet had advanced several amounts of money on hind security, blit the advance to Air. Telford was his first ■ experience with lending money on stock security. In offering the property for sale, Mr. J’alairet had no intentions of bidding, but to sidl his security for what he could get for it. Witness had suggested to Mr. Richmond that the purchase of the mortgage would be worth while considering.. Witness suggested that so long as Mr. Richmond was

prepared to bid up tit the sale, either lie would make a big protit by leaving •hi' held when the bids got up siuneiently high, or if he wits the highest bidder, be would secure a good property. 'the sale of Mr. Baiairet's mortgage was arranged at £75.00. The suggestion of a conspiracy Was impossible and did not take place. Each ponton id the transact ion was fairly and honestly done for the protection of the parties involved. Witness stated that he wtis Mr.' Palairet’s guarantor in the advance to Air. Telford. Mr. O’Leary: Then you were interested in that you were Air. I’alairet’s guarantor?—Vos.

When default was made under this mortgage there was a conflict, of interests, and I submit that it was your duty to see that these parties were independently twl vised. Mr. Cook said he was quite at a loss to know why Mr. O’Leary’s crossexamination was taking the form it; Mils. , , ' ' . . . , • His Honor said he did not propose to stop it. To turther questions, witness . said he understood that Air. Scott was independently advised on one occasion. ' A'fter an adjournment until 7 p.m., Mr. O’Leary’s cross-examination pf witness was continued, witness stating that no request had.been made by the Gisborne Stieepfarmers ’ F.M. and At. Co., Ltd., to be released from its mortgage to Messrs Scott and Telford, but the firm was keeping the partners under fairly tight rein. He denied Air. O’Leary’s suggestion that in subsequent negotiations witness sacrificed Air. Telford’s interests. Witness added that he had no instructions with regard to raising additional iinance to protect the valuable stock. Witness admitted that Mr. Richmond obtained good value for the price paid for what he bought at the mortgagee’s sale. Since then Air. Richluond had employed Air. Telford til £SOO a year to exercise a general supervision over the property. His Honor said he proposed to put his decision in writing, and lie reserved his decision. MOTION FOR - DISCHARGE

Air. Burnard applied for a discharge from bankruptcy of Alcssrs. Scott and Telford. Mr. T. A. Coleman said he was instructed at the present stage to oppose the discharge, which it was felt should stand over pending the decision of the present ease. His Honor and Air. Burnard concurred with this view, and the application was adjourned until the next sitting of the court.