Thank you for correcting the text in this article. Your corrections improve Papers Past searches for everyone. See the latest corrections.

This article contains searchable text which was automatically generated and may contain errors. Join the community and correct any errors you spot to help us improve Papers Past.

Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image

10/- IN THE POUND

SECURITY FOR THAMES LOANS. LENDERS’ HEAVY LOSSES. By Telegraph—Press Association WELLINGTON, July 30. In a written judgment on the Thames debenture-holders’ petitions, for the appointment of a receiver (oral judgment in which he had already pronounced), His Honour Mr Justice Ostler says:— “It is unnecessary to give a detailed history of the loans which have been raised but it may be stated that in 1921. the unimproved value or rateable land in the borough was over £283,000, and the total debt of the borough about £40.000, or about £l4 to every £IOO of unimproved value. To-day, the rateable value of unimproved land has sunk to about £107.000, but the total amount of loans raised by the borough, and secured on rates payable in respect to unimproved value, is no less a sum than £250,000. and, in addition, the Thames Harbour Board has raised £60,000, secured by a borough rate, so that there is a total debt of £2OO for every £IOO worth of unimproved value.” After referring to the steadily increasing amount of loans, and the steadily decreasing value of the security offered few" them, His Honour points out that since 1924 there had been no issues of loans taken up by the public, except a small loan of £575 by the A.M.P. Society, and one of £12,000 by A. and G. Price, Ltd., both in 1925. With these exceptions, all the money borrowed by the borough since 1924 has been lent by Government Departments, chiefly by the Public Trustee, who invested no less than £130,000 out of the Common Fund in Thames securities. It seems inevitable that the Common Fund will suffer a heavy loss in this investment. The opinion held by His Honour was that if a receiver was appointed, and subsequently the Governor-General in Council appointed a Commissioner, the latter appointment would immediately render the powerless. He could take no step to enforce payment of interest, and it would be futile to appoint a receiver if his powers were liable to be destroyed immediately in that way.

Permanent link to this item

https://paperspast.natlib.govt.nz/newspapers/THD19320801.2.28

Bibliographic details

Timaru Herald, Volume CXXXVII, Issue 19249, 1 August 1932, Page 5

Word Count
344

10/- IN THE POUND Timaru Herald, Volume CXXXVII, Issue 19249, 1 August 1932, Page 5

10/- IN THE POUND Timaru Herald, Volume CXXXVII, Issue 19249, 1 August 1932, Page 5

Help

Log in or create a Papers Past website account

Use your Papers Past website account to correct newspaper text.

By creating and using this account you agree to our terms of use.

Log in with RealMe®

If you’ve used a RealMe login somewhere else, you can use it here too. If you don’t already have a username and password, just click Log in and you can choose to create one.


Log in again to continue your work

Your session has expired.

Log in again with RealMe®


Alert