LYSNAR APPEAL

Evening Post, Volume CXV, Issue 67, 21 March 1933, Page 8

LYSNAR APPEAL

AROWHANA STATION

DEALINGS WITH BANK

QUESTION OF CONTROL

Argument both on the facts and on the law is being continued before the Court of Appeal today in the case in which William Douglas. Lysnar is appealing against a decision of Mr. Justf&e MacGregor in favour of the National Bank of New Zealand, Ltd.

Mr. Lysnar had proceeded against the bank for over £50,000 damages for alleged breach of a contract entered into, with him on May 1, 1931, to provide for the future running of Arowhana Station, near Gisborne.

Mr. Justice Eeed, Mr. Justice Ostler, and Mr. Justice Smith are on the Bench. Mr. Lysnar is conducting his own case, and Mr. T. C. A. Hislo'p, with Mr. G. X.' Powles, appears for the National Bank.

Referring to the events which vled up to the making of the alleged contract, the appellant said that in March, 1931, he had a large overdraft with the bank. The amount was disputed, but was considerable, and was such an amount as could not be raised at a time like 1931. The bank therefore controlled the position and took charge of all the revenue of the station, although the appellant contended that the revenue was sufficient to pay the interest owing to the Public Trustee, the East Coast Commissioner, and the bank; it was not sufficient, however, to reduce the overdraft. As a result of the bank's refusal to release any of the Irevenue to pay the interest on the mortgages, the East Coast Commissioner sold up thQ back portion of the station, over which he held a mortgage, and bought it in himself. '

Both before and after the sale, the appellant went on, considerable negotiations took place between the Commissioner, Mr. J. T. Grose, general manager of the National Bank, and himself. After the sale he pointed out that if the front portion of the station was worked alone it would result in a loss of £1865 a year, but if tlie station was worked as a whole it would make a profit of £1511 a year. The appellant dealt at length with the various steps taken in the negotiations, stating that the bank, amongst other things, insisted on absolute control of the revenue and expenditure on tho station, a condition to which the Commissioner and he would not agree. Mr. Justice Keed observed that the whole battle between the parties was the bank's insistence on continuing the full control of the station. Mr. Justice Ostler (to the appellant): What I want to know is, did you on April 27 agree in your own handwriting' that the management of the station was to be in the control of the bank? Tho appellant: Yes, that is so. As things stood then, I did agree with that; . I was quite prepared then to let them wash the whole thing up, but if we came to fresh arrangements the thing was to be altered, and'l say we came to those fresh arrangements on May 1. (Proceeding.)