THE COURTS-TO-DAY

Evening Star, Issue 17226, 16 December 1919, Page 9

THE COURTS-TO-DAY

MAGISTRATE'S COURT. (Before H. Y. Widdowson, Esq., S M ) Judgment by default waa given for plamtihs m the following cases :-H. Wise and Co. Ltd. v. William Lloyd (of f ,i°> a) ' advertising:, £3 12s, and *? 7- Balkind v. Rob- ?\ \ „ K uthonord, balance of money H £ 7 > and costs (£1 3s 6d): W. S pffo aj rt * m - Bae (of Sutton), clothing, and Son v. Ihos. Wm. Cubitt, goods, £4 0S n 9d am costs (12s); same v. C. Edgar (oi Milton), balance of goods, £1 19 9 t - n d costs (]2s) ; sam-i v. Chas. Gallagher,' balance due on account stated, lis 3d, and costs_(7 S ) ; National Mortgage and Agency Co., Ltd., v. John Hawley (of Waitepeka), F«S d ?,? ipp, y sd ' £4l 10s 10d > andi costs (£2 14s); Alex. Dick v. David D. Morrison, goods, £5 6s 9d, and costs (£1 3s od). P. R, Skinner v. James Wilson, Claim, TW* on J ud P m,erlt summons, for goods. —Defendant.did not .appear, and was ordered to pay tho eiim owing foithwith, in default tlireo days' imprisonment. Moneylender's 'Claim Disallowed.—Win. John Wjlliamson (Mr Neill) v. David Feathers, of Invercargill (Mr J. C. Stephens).—Claim, £l2 15s, balance of money lent. The sum claimed was the balance alleged to be due of a loan .totalling £3O. —The evidence of plaintiff was that he advanced £25 at the first transaction, tho balance of £5 representing the interest taken hi advance. Subsequently, a pound at a time, £3 was advanced, making £2B lent in ail.—Under cross-examination plaintili stated' that the rate of interest charged was 20 jot cent. Periodic payments were not considered in this calculation, and he had never worked out what the actual rate was (Mr Stephens suggested 40 per cent.). Witness denied defendant's statement that ho had paid £34 in all for £2B received, also his statement that the sum was borrowed in two lots of £lO and then £ls. The fact was (ho said) that £25 was loaned, but defendant owed £lO ou a previous transaction, and 20 received only £ls. Questioned as to the clcedls of defendant's deceased first wife's property (which defendant alleged was security of the loan) witness said the deed 3 were lodged in the ban]; for a day or two, but were never regarded by him as security, Ho returned th-e when requested.—Mr Stephens : What would you think if you pledged the deeds of your house, and presently got them back from the mortgagee ? Would not you think you were free of the debt ?—Witness : Yes, but the deeds were not in question in this case. They were not security. Counsel produced an instance of a credit acknowledged, but not shown in plaintiff's statement.—Mr Stephens submitted on several .grounds that plaintiff could not succeed. He contended that the evidence of defendant (taken in Invercargill), when compared with tie evidence of plaintiff, showed that ho (defendant, was right in all he said of the transaction. As to tho deeds, he argued that they were handed over as security, and whon plaintiff gave them up defendant waa entitled to believe that the whole thing was paid off.—Magistrate : Why didn't he get the p.n.'s back?— Mr Stephens i " Ho is a man 75 years of age, and is a -working 'shoemaker." Counsel also urged that plaintiff sued on a promissory note, not for interest, and could not get interest because it was not included in his statement of claim. Moreover, the .promissory note was one on demand, and interest was not payable until demand was made, and demand was not made until it was sued for. On the question of excessive interest the security had to be considered. If defendant's stoTy wa-3 correct, that he had r^iS 4 ' Pontiff had received that sum V? r -vr ' whlcn was enough.—ln reply, MrNeill contended that the deeds had no boring on the issue. They were not in the wife s name, the property might have been deeded to someone else, and they were not regarded as security. He argued also _ that interest was agreed on.—The Magistrate said the plaintiff, in accordance with the Court's order, had filed particulars of his claim, which showed that instead of £ls lQs (originally claimed) there was only £l2 15s duo. Ho wanted to say at tho outset that in a previous case tried, before him he was struck with the fairness of Mi Williamson's chafes under circumstances where there had been no security at all, and where he stood a risk of losing tho money entirely. I n the present case defendant stated that he had paid the money, Williamson had handed him hack certain deeds, and he thought the transaction finished. There was Also a serious omission of an amount of £3 10a credited to defendant, as well as the £2 15s mentioned in regard to first particulars filed. Further, there was a good deal 111 the contention rais-ed about the handing back of the deeds. The fact that Williamson held them showed"' that they were regarded as some sort of security, and the natural inference was that when the security was handed back the money had fcesn paid. Judgment would be erven' for defendant, with costs {£2 18s}- <