SUPREME COURT

Evening Post, Volume XCVI, Issue 40, 15 August 1918, Page 8

SUPREME COURT

CIVIL SITTINGS OPEN

A DIVORCE PETITION.

The civil sittings of the Supreme Court were commenced this morning, his Honour Mr. Justice Hosking presiding. The first casa taken was the divorce petition of Leonard Charles Utting v. Grace Hepzibah Utting, on the ground of _ misconduct, one Harry G. Moncrieff being^ cited as co-resnondent. Mr. 11. F. O'Leary appeared for the petitioner, but there was no appearance for either respondent or co -respondent. Although the case was undefended, it was heard before a jury, as there was a claim for £501 damages against ths co-respondent, f-nd the Act requires that damages must be assessed by a jury. Mr. O'Leary, outlying the case for ths petitioner, said that the latter was now in thp service of the Telegraph Department at Masterton, but last year and the year before he had been on active service v. ith the Wireless Troop in Mesopotamia. On his return, invalided home, petitioner, acting on information received, paid a visit to a house in Palmerston North, and their found his wife with their son, the only child of the marriage. She broke down when she saw petitioner, and, on being questioned, she admitted that she was iiving there with Moncrieff, tbo co-respondent. The latter also admitted misconduct on being interviewed by the petitioner. Counsel added that the co-respond2nt had been a storeman, later he was in the Medical Corps on Home Service at Awapuni Gamp, and now ho is a farmer.

Petitioner, in evidence, supported coiiti* sel's opening statement, adding that he had always lived happily with his wife, and when he went away to Mesopotamia he left her provided for at the rate of ■£3 15s per week.

Addressing ths jury on the question of damages, his Honour pointed out that damages are not given by-way of punishment, but. by way of solatium and recompense. After a short retirement, the jury avy'arded the petitioner £250 damages. His Honour made an order accordingly, and_ granted a decree nisi, with£2s costs against petitioner.

A .MONEYLENDER'S CLAIM. Lazarus Wolfe Balkind, registered moneylender, claimed the. sum of £29 from Arthur Percy Ralph, of Kilbirnie, clerk. i;

Sir J.- G. Findlay, K:C., with him Mr. J. C. Morrison, appeared for the plaintiff, and Mr. P. Levi for the defendant.

In the statement of claim it was set out that in February ,of 1918 plaintiff lent to the defendant the sum of £25, repayable together , with £14 interest thereon, by monthly instalments of £6 10s each. The defendant had repaid £10, and plaintiff therefore sought judgment for the balance, £29.

The statement of defence denied the liability of £29, as alleged. The defendant claimed that tbo interest charged in respect of the sum lent was excessive, and that the transaction was harsh and •unconscionable.. Defendant claimed relief under 'subjection 1 /of section 3 of the Monoylendevs Act, 1908, and contended that by virtue of the provisions of the Mortgages Extension Act, 1914, and its amendments, it was not lawful for the plaintiff to call up the principal sum secured without the leave of the

Court,

Sir John Findlay said that the case practically involved the existence of the moneylending business. Unfortunately, in cases of the sort brought before the Magistrate's Court, decisions seemed to have been given without due reference to the principles laid down in a number of recent English cases. So the matter had been brought before the Supreme Court. What had to be determined was : Was the instrument harsh or unconscionable, or was tire rate of' interest excessive ? /

His Honour : The theory on one side seems to be that there should be no such thing as a moneylender, and the theory on the other side that the moneylender is a very valuable man in time of need.

Counsel went on to deal with' the ramifications of plaintiff's business, and referred to the risky nature of the securities he has to accept in a great many instances.

His Honour reserved his decision in the matter.

(Proceeding.)