"A MONSTROUS THING”

New Zealand Times, Volume LII, Issue 12194, 20 July 1925, Page 6

"A MONSTROUS THING”

DISPUTE OVER MORTGAGE JUDGE’S STRONG COMMENT PLAINTIFF’S ACTION DEPLORED (By Telegraph.—Special to “Times.”) AUCKLAND, July 18. “One could understand a professional moneylender taking an action aB plaintiff in such case, but with the two parties situated as these were it is hard to understand.” said Mr Justice Reed, in the Supreme Court, in giving judgment for defendant in an action for the recovery of £196 as the balance due on a second mortgage for £2lO. Earlier in the proceedings, His Honour observed that this claim was the most drastic thing he had ever heard of. That for the sake of £4 6s 8d one working man should try to get another’s home was a monstrous thing. The claim was brought by Ruby Irene Rastrick, wife of Frank Rastrick, an Auckland City Council labourer, for whom Mr Holmden appeared. The defendant, represented by Mr Quartly, was Frederick Molesworth, a retired man, in only moderate circumstances, and the guarantor of a mortgage for £2lO given by his son, Frank Molesworth. The defence to the claim was that an agreement had been entered into concerning the payment of instalments due under the mortgage. INSTALMENT OVERDUE Mrs Molesworth, wife of the mortgagor, stated in evidence that one instalment was in February of this year. Her husband had been out of work. With her husband, she saw Frank Rastrick in Karangahape road, and Rastrick agreed that as witness and her husband were going to live at Morrinsville he would accept the rent of the house until such time as the arrears were paid ofl. Frederick Molesworth, the defendant, stated that his son instructed him to collect the rent of the house, which was let furnished for £2 10s per week, and to hand it to Rastrick. On March 7th, Rastrick complained to witness that an instalment was overdue. Witness told him that the house was let to a good tenant, and that he would get the rent. Rastrick then said, “That’s all right; we’ll leave it at that.” RASTRICK GRUMBLERS The first week’s rent went to the land agent, but witness took the next week’s rent to Rastrick and got a receipt. Rastrick grumbled about the adrears to defendant. A fortnight later witness took two weeks’ rent to Rastrick, who refused it, stating that he had placed the-matter in his solicitor’s hands. His Honour: That £5 would have paid everything up to date, Frank Rastrick, agent for the plain, tiff, denied having agreed to accept the rent in lieu of instalments. His Honour said that the full fimount due had ,been tendered, and it should have been accepted. He did not view with any favour a person who took such drastic action. A case like this should be decided on facts and not by precedent. Judgment would be for the defendant.