£120,000 IN CLAIMS

Grey River Argus, 6 December 1932, Page 5

£120,000 IN CLAIMS

W. D. LYSNAR’S CASE Against National Bank (Per Press Association). WELLINGTON, December 5The licaraing began to-day at the Supreme Court, before Mr Justice McGregor, of W. I). Lysnar’s claim for £50,919 from the National Bank of New Zealand, and the Bank’s counterclaim for £71.990, arising out of mortgage operations concerning plaintiff’s sheep station. Arowhana, Gisborne. Mr I.ysnar is conducting his own WELLINGTON, December 5. William Douglas Lysnar, ex M.P. ’for Gisborne, was the plaintiff in the action heard in the Supreme Court to-day in which the claim and counter-claim total over £120,000. Mr Lysnar, who is suing in person, is claiming £50,919 from the National Bank of New Zea land, and the Bank is counter-claiming for £71.990. The litigation has arisen over an East Coast sheep station, Arowhana, near Gisborne. Mr Justice MacGregor was on tho Bench. Mr Lysnar is conducting his o"n case, and Messrs T. C. A. Hislop and G. k\ Powles appear for tie National Bank. The plaintiff’s statement of claim t]c tails the financial arrangements al 1-gedly made between himself, tho East Coast Commissioner, and the General Manager of the National Bank, and he contends that the Bank, after tl-.c agreement had been made on May Ist, 1932, attempted to impose additional conditions on May 2. The plaintiff had refused to allow tho insertion these conditions, and the Bank Cn tored ito the possession, and use of-.lbu property. ’The defence, generally, is a denial of vital portions of the plaintiff’s claim. 'Hie Bank admits that it entered into possession of the property, but it status that it did so in pursuance of powers conferred upon it by various instruments. The Bank denied there was any contract entered into by tho plaintiff, the Commissioner and the Bank. Mr Lysnar opened his case, dealing at. length with the various negotiations between himself, the Bank and tho Commissioner. Mr Lysnar also gav« evidence, and -he case is proceeding. THE DISPUTED CONTRACT. WELLINGTON, December 5. In the Lysnar v. National Bank case, th” plaintiff outlined his case at some length. He mentioned correspondence between himself and the Bank in regard to the arragements for securities to the Bank, and in reference to a new tenure for a “back portion’’ of the station, without which the remainder of the station could not be worked to advantage ~ Mr Lysnar proceeded to give evi dence concerning the contract which he claimed was made* between himself and the Bank, after arrangements had been completed for a fresh tenure of the back portion. Counsel for the Bank, cross-examin-ing Mr Lysnar, sought to show that the contract made was subject to certain conditions, the most important being that the Bank was to have control uf the management of Mr Lysnar’s pro perty, and that the plaintiff had repudiated the conditions. The plaintiff contended that Mr J. T. Grose, General Manager of the Bank, wanted to control the management altogether. He refused, except that new expenditure should be subject to his approval. Replying to counsel, plaintiff admitted writing to the Public Trustee on June 27, 1931. saying that ho was un able to complete arrangements with the Bank, adding a postscript: “I undertake not to allow myself to take advantage of tho provisions of tho Mortgagors’ Relief Act, 1931.” Tho fol lowing month he withdrew this undertaking, as the Bank had gone to the Public Trustee to make terms regarding his property, while he (tho plaintiff) was negotiating to get money to pay the Bank off. Tho hearing was adjourned until tomorrow.