BUYING A FARM

Southland Times, Issue 19275, 20 June 1924, Page 5

BUYING A FARM

DECEIVING THE GOVERNMENT. INTERESTING AUCKLAND CASE. (Per United Press Association.) AUCKLAND, June 19. “It is no wonder that returned soldierg fail in their farming ventures if the circumstances are similar to those just revealed,” said Mr Justice Stringer m the Supreme Court in delivering judgment in a case in which Joseph Walker Moore, of Pukokohc, claimed £585 from Thomas Maxwell, of Maranarua, fanner, in respect to a promisory note and interest, or alternatively £541 14/9, a sum allegedly awarded to plaintiff by a land agent who acted as arbiter. The evidence was to the effect that plaintiff gave an option to defendant and plaintiff’s brother, both returned soldiers, over the farm at £3960. Application was made to the Land Board for an advance, but the Board would not allow more than £3OOO and would not allow a second mortgage of £960. Plaintiff alleged that defendant then suggested it was customary for returned soldiers purchasing farms to get the vendors to accept promisory notes to cover the excess over the advances, and this was accepted in two notes of £4BO each. The promisory note was disclaimed by defendant, owing to a difference regarding the area of some swamp land. Summing up, His Honour said that by its refusal to entertain the proposal for a second mortgage, the Board showed that it could not sanction the advance unless the balance of £960 was taken off the price. Plaintiff and defendant then concocted a letter to lhe Board, in which they professed to be prepared to accept the valuation of £3OOO. 'lhat was a false and altogether improper statement, as they had made a surreptitious arrangement by which the balance of £960 was secured to plaintiff by promisory notes. “The conclusion is,” he said, “that the parties conspired together to make a fraudulent representation to the Government in order to obtain a loan. The transaction was illegal and plaintiff has no legal claim, although defendant was equally a party to the deception. The Government makes the fullest advance possible, and it is its endeavour to see that no undue burdens are imposed by private agreements.” Judgment was given for defendant without costs.