A LAND DEAL

Southland Times, Issue 18622, 21 August 1919, Page 7

A LAND DEAL

SOLDIER DWYER’S PURCHASE.

MR OUGHTON’S EXPLANATION

On August 7 the Southland Land Board had before it an application from Mr F. S. Dwyer for financial assistance towards the stocking of a property that he had purchased through Mr W. • Oughtou (land agent). The application was refused and in the course ol the process gome remarks were made by members that were thought to reflect on the agent's actions in connection with the transaction. The sequel took place yesterday when Mr Oughton and Mr W. Macalister appeared before the Board to otter an explanation of the firms (Messrs luecA and Oughton) and particularly Mr Oughton’s standing in the ‘matter. Mr Macalister explained that Mr Oughton had been advised that from the light in which the case was placed before the Board and the public the inference might be drawn that his (Mr Ougliton’s) actions had been somewhat shady. He had looked into nil the tacts of the case and could confidently say that Mr Cughton’s attitude had been honourable in every respect. It appeared, he continued, that Mr Oughton had had Mr Crooks’s property on his hands lor disposal. Mr Dwyer, senior, amt his returned soldier son had called at Meek and Oughton’s othce in search of a properly for the latter.’ Mr Ciooks’s had appeared suitable to Mr Oughton and the Dwyers had been shown over it, the price and full particulars being told them. A few days later the place had been again inspected and it had been decided to purchase. Before this, Mr Oughton, knowing that Mr Crooks had been himself only a recent purchaser, had told the Dwyers of that fact. The price fixed was £l6 per acre. The land was subject to two mortgages totalling £1641 and a cash payment of £4OO was arranged for. An impression given to Meek and Oughton was that Dwyer, junior, wanted to have as much of the required deposit at hand as possible, so it had been decided to accept a payment of £2OO, a motor car valued at £l5O, and a promissory note of £SO as the deposit. After the transaction had been completer! by Mr Dwyer’s solicitors, Messrs Watson and Haggitt, Mr Oughton heard nothing further regarding the matter until he received a request from the Board to attend the meeting at which the case was considered. It appeared that, after completing the transaction, Mr Dwyer, junior, had gone to the Land Board offices to lodge an application for financial assistance with which to purchase stock, and there he had been advised that he should also apply for an advance on the land. Evidently, went on Mr Macalister, Mr Crooks had purchased the land involved at £l4 10s per acre. Although he had sold it at £l6, it must be remembered that implements valued at £SO and between 15 and 20 acres of turnips were given in the sale to the Dwyers. The impression had been conveyed to the public that Dwyer had been led into purchasing a farm at a great deal over its value, but its former owner, wishing to borrow £I2OO, an intending lender had had the land valued by Mr G. F. Watson, who had classed it as first-class security for £I2OO. So that on Mr Watson’s valuation the farm must be taken as worth something like £ls per acre. Again, surely the land had not been over-valued when it could, he understood, be sold again to-morrow for £l6 per acre.

Members here stated that the value of the farm was not at issue—it might be worth £l6.

Mr J. Fleming remarked that the impression that there was any reflection on Mr Oughton’s' character was quite wrong. Judging from the form that the case had taken before the Board at its previous meeting, the Board could not blame anyone other than Mr Oughton. The case had to be judged on its merits. The Commissioner said that no attack had been made on Mr Oughton in connection with the matter. The Board members had criticised a certain class of dealings with soldiers and the present was one case in point, of many that went before the Board. He did not mean to imply that Mr Oughton had done anything that other agents were not doing every day. Agents and owners came together to sell property, the deposit was paid and then forfeited by the soldier purchaser if he could not see his way to go through with the deal. The settlement of soldiers was part of the repatriation scheme, and he thought that it was the duty of land agents and dealers to convince themselves that a man had the wherewithal to look after his interests after a deal was put through before they involved the man in any purchase. Mr Macalister here stated that the man in this case was not inexperienced. Mr Dwyer, senior, had really been the principal in .the transaction, and besides experience in fanning he was said to possess shrewdness. He agreed that every land agent had a duty to see that the soldier looking for land got a square deal. It was not suggested that the Board had been wrong in refusing Mr Dwyer’s application, but it could be seen that there was not any reflection on Mr Oughton in connection with the early part of the proceedings. Mr J. King remarked that Mr Dwyer, junior, when he applied for an advance for stock from the Government, had expressed the opinion that he would not get the deposit returned now that the transaction had fallen through. Mr J. Carmichael: The Board is trying to impress on agents that it should be decided that soldiers are able to stock farms before they are saddled with properties. The Commissioner: These facts, it should be understood, were not placed before the Board at its previous meeting.

Mr Fleming; At a previous meeting the Board made it quite clear that the deposits should be peepverable by soldiers if through the Board’s decision it was made impossible to carry the deal through.

The Commissioner said that the Board must take Mr Oughton’s explanation that, when the property was sold, Mr Oughton knew nothing about the purchaser applying for an advance from the Board. Neverthe’ws, be thought that Mr Oughton might

ave given a little more consideration to „|e position, although he had understood that the soldier was being advised by his father and solicitors. The Board, he concluded, did not consider it a fair thing to let a man into a place when he did not possess the ability to see everything through. Mr H. J. Middleton spoke on similar lines. Mr Oughton explained that when the deal had been put through be had told Dwyer, junior, that he (Dwyer) should be able to get assistance for procuring stock from the Government. The speaker had then been under that impression. Mr Macalister; At any rate in this matter Mr Oughton's conduct has been that of an honourable man. Messrs King and Fleming; We think so, too. Mr Fleming said that the Board desired to impress on land agents generally that the methods of dealing in matters of that sort were open to improvement. Mr King expressed the opinion that all the trouble had arisen through Mr Oughton dealing with Mr Dwyer, senior, and the Board with Mr Dwyer, junior. The discussion then ceased, and Messrs "highton and Macalister withdrew.