MONEY-LENDING SECRETS.

New Zealand Herald, Volume LVI, Issue 17263, 12 September 1919, Page 6

MONEY-LENDING SECRETS.

HIGH INTEREST CHARGED.

MAGISTRATE REDUCES CLAIM. [BY TELEGRAPH.OWN CORRESPONDENT.] CHRISTCHURCH. Thursday. A money-lender who proceeded against a client at the Magistrate's Court to-day for a sum of £59 12s, being money lent, with interest, was awarded only £17 bv Mr. S. E. McCarthy. S.M. The plaintiff was Lazarus Wolfe Balkind (Mr. J. R. Cunningham), and the defendant Robert Francis McDonald (Mr. T. W. Rowe). The plaintiff claimed £31 12s, being the balance of loan?, which, with interest, totalled £46 19s, and which had been made by him to the defendant between May 31, 1913, and June 12, 1914. Plaintiff claimed, in addition, £28 by way of interest on the amount outstanding. Plaintiff gave evidence as to the various transactions he had had with the defendant between the dates mentioned.

While cross-examining plaintiff, Mr. Rowe pointed out to him that £23 15s had been borrowed by the defendant between May, 1913, and June, 1914, andi during this time he had paid some £15 back. This left about £8 of the original amount borrowed. "And now you are claiming £60." said Mr. Rowe. Balkind replied : " Yes. that is with the interest." He had charged 80 per cent. interest, the money to be repaid by weekly, fortnightly, or monthly instalments.

Mr. Rowe: If a man borrows £100, to be paid back in 52 weekly instalments. you make the total amount he has to pay £180?

The witness said this was so, but he would not charge 80 per cent, on such a large sum as £100.

Mr. Rowe pointed out to Balkind that this method of calculation made the interest not 80 per cent., but 154 per cent. Mr. Rowe led the witness through ths various transactions ho had had with the defendant. Counsel pointed out that an examination of the figures showed that defendant had been charged 80 per vent. for £10 two months before this sum was advanced.

Witness said this was due to a mistake. Mr. Rowe said the defence was that the rate of interest charged was too high. The magistrate said there was no doubt that in August. 1914, plaintiff was willing to accept £° 15s. c,- even less, in full settlement, would make the actual amount due at that time £7 15s, and allow plaintiff 25 per cent, on that sum. This would come to £17. Judgment was accordingly entered for £17, together with costs.