LAND DEAL.

Timaru Herald, Volume XCVIII, Issue 18084, 20 June 1924, Page 6

LAND DEAL.

SOLDIERS’ FOLLY. By Telegraph- —. Truss Association. AUCKLAND, Juno 19. “It is no wmmer returned sokuers fail m uietr rarmuig tontines it tnell circumstances are ™ al eu ” saicl J uugo actings! m tno Buuivme Court, on • Uoltvorntg juctgmem m a ease m which Josepn Walker Moore, of Pukeitone, clanneu c-,s.i from 1 nomas Alaxwefl, ol Maruuarua, tanner, ill respect to a prouusTrv note, and interest, or alternatively £541 Us 9d, a sum allegedly uwarned to plaintiff by a land agent, wiio acted as arbiter. Evidence was to the effect that nlaintut gave an option to defendant and plaintiff's brother, both returned soldiers, over a farm at £3960. Application was mad© to the .Land Boaid tor an advanoe, but tho Board would not allow more than £3OOO, am would not allow a second mortgage o £960. Plaintiff alleged that defendant then suggested tlnn it wu-> cus L Jin.ii> fo:r returned soldiers purchasing lain a to get vendors to accept promissoiy notes to cover the excess o' e advance. This was accepted in two notes of £4BO each. A promissoiy note was disclaimed by defendant, owing to a difference regarding the S "ln dimming up, his Honour said that bv refusal to entertain the pronosM for a second mortgage, the Board showed it could not sanction an advance unless the balance of £960 ■as taken off the price. Plaintiff and defendant then concocted a letter to the Board, in which they professcll o he prepared to accept the valuation nf £3OOO That was a false and altogether improper statement, as they L„i' ~,,-ide a surreptitious arrangement w'horehv the balance or .£960 was secured to plaintiff, by. promissory notes. The conclusion is that the parties conspired together to make I--, min lent representation lo the ernment in order to obtain a loam transaction was illegal, ana plaintiff had no legal claim, a though dcI'omEnl was ctpially a party to the deception. The Government makes tho fillßst advance possible, and it is its endeavour to see that no. undue burdens are imposed by private agreements. Judgment for defendant without costs.”