FARMER’S APPEAL

Dominion, Volume 26, Issue 150, 21 March 1933, Page 8

FARMER’S APPEAL

Mr. Lysnar’s Case Against National Bank QUESTION OF CONTRACT The hearing of an appeal by William Douglas Lysnar, farmer, of Gisborne, from a decision of Mr. Justice MacGregor, in an action in which he unsuccessfully sought to recover ioOJIJ 9/- from the National Bank of New Zealand. Ltd., was commenced in the Court of Appeal yesterday. On the Bench are Mr. Justice Reed. Mr. Justice Ostler, and Mr. Justice Smith. Appellant is conducting his own case, and the bank is represented by Mr. T. C. A. Hislop and Mr. G. R. Powles. At the Supreme Court hearing in December last Mr. Lysnar alleged that the bank had wrongfully taken possession of his farm property at Arowhana Station, near Gisborne, stock, horses, and stores, and claimed the damages stated. The bank denied any contract, and counter-claimed for due on March 31 last under mortgages and instruments of security, plus interest and bank charges to date. Evidence was given on behalf ot the defendant bank to show that the plaintiff was never intended to have unconditional control, of the management of the station, that any new expenditure was to be subject to ihe bank’s approval, and any surplus revenue was to be disposed of as the bank advised. , .. ~ In giving judgment, Mr. Justice MacGregor said: —

“One cannot help feeling sympathy for the plaintiff In his financial misfortunes, but these appear in this case to have influenced his better judgment and led him to adopt a litigious course foredoomed to failure . . . The whole action appears to have been launched by the plaintiff upon a mistaken view of the principles of law which apply to contracts of the kind in question here. . . - Apparently obsessed by these mistaken views of the law- applicable to the facts of the matter, the I’lami l ® proceeded with this action, relying almost entirely upon his own verbal evidence, apart from the documents produced. As MS almost inevitable,, his evidence was obviously shaped and coloured by him to support his preconceived but mistaken views concerning the law applicable. "In the result,” said his Honour, I regret to say that I cannot rely on that er - dence where it is in conflict with the evi dence called on behalf of the defendant bank. . . Any confusion or misunderstanding that arose was in fact largely due to the plaintiff's conduct in assuming to act as intermediary between the bank and the commissioner while giving his full confidence to neither of the parties with whom he was dealing., and thus to some extent deceiving both.

It is from this decision that Mr. Lysnar is now appealing. The case will be continued to-day.