SEQUEL TO A LOAN.

New Zealand Herald, Volume LI, Issue 15646, 27 June 1914, Page 11

SEQUEL TO A LOAN.

THE MONEY-LENDERS AST.

UNUSUAL COURT CASE.

FINE OF TEN POUNDS.

A cask of an unusual nature regarding the Money-lenders Act came befois Mr. F. V. Frazor, S.M., at the Police Court yesterday. The parties to the t:tion were D» ; ?y Taylor (Mr. Gould) and Perciv.il '-anley Ussher (Mr H ■■:•< ':»n), the former 1 ringing a charge ?.-. • ..-. ..' latter t" il.t effect hat, being a rep. uered money lender, ho failed after a reasonable request, and on the tender of a reasonable sum for expenses, to furnish the informant, a borrower from h.m, with a copy of a certain promissory note relating to the loan obtained by her on the security of the =a:d promissory note.

It was alleged that on October 20, 1910, a loan was obtained from Cssher, tho loan being negotiated fur Mrs. Taylor by a brother named Mcintosh. Usther advanced the loan, and a piomissory note for the sum required was given, and was signed by the brother, and ondorsud by Mrs. Taylor. The informant made many payments of interest, and secured receipts from Ussher in her own name. Having received a final demand lor a considerable sum she took advice and, on the accounts being made up, it was arranged, according to the informant's witnesses, that she should inspect the promissory note, with a view to ascertaining the position. The request was said to nave been refused, so that a formal demand under the Act was made with a " tender of reasonable expenses " (Is), but again, it was stated, defendant refused to allow the informant to inspect. It was on that demand that I the proceedings were taken. SubseI quently a demand for payment was made upon the brother, and the brother stated in evidence, rather than appear in Court ias a defendant, he paid £18 odd. On I writing for a copy of the promissory nolo ! the brother, it was stated, was told that I he would have to pay 10s as expenses. ' Tho defence outlined by counsel was ' that Ussher had agreed to make a loan to I Mcintosh. It might be that the circumI stances of the transaction were known Ito Usshe r but 'hf '. ''.er had .ways rejgaide' Mcintosh as the borrow.". His I reason (or demanding !0j for the copy of the prom.as.. note «a that he thought a co;iy would have to be mado by a solici'or.

I When [Tastier had given evidence on tho I linos outlined by counsel, Llio magistrate i asked him about the alleged demand (or ■ 10».

I roller: I would not have wanted that.

The Magistrate: Well, why did you a,'.|; him for it?

L'ualior: I would not have taken it.

Thy Magistrate: Oh, get out of tho box. Get out of the box. Fined £10 and coats.

In answer to Mr. Ilolmden, tho magistrate said that both on the facts and on the law ho found that informant wua the borrower, and ha was sure Umher know It "The Una I nay about it the bolter," lie added " If*you like to appeal against my decision yon may,"