MORTGAGE ON STATION

Otago Daily Times, Issue 21829, 16 December 1932, Page 10

MORTGAGE ON STATION

LYSNAR v. NATIONAL BANK JUDGMENT FOR DEFENDANT (Pick United Press Association.) WELLINGTON, December 15. Reserved decision was delivered to-day by Mr Justice MacGregor in the Lysnar case. Judgment was entered £br the National Bank of New Zealand. His Honor commented on the fact that the writ was not issued till May 13 of this year, and said that in his opinion it was a matter for extreme regret that it was ever issued.

His Honor said auy confusion or misunderstanding that arose was largely duo to plaintiff’s conduct in assuming to act as intermediary between the bank and the commissioner, while giving full confidence to neither of the parties with whom he was dealing, and thus to some extent deceiving both. Plaintiff, in his Honor’s opinion, had failed to prove that the defendant entered into the contract alleged, either on May 1, 1931, or any other date. His Honor said he could not help feeling sympathy for the plaintiff in his financial misfortunes, but these appeared in_ the present case to have influenced his better judgment and led him to adopt a litigious course foredoomed to failure. The plaintiff, who was a retired solicitor, appeared to have acted throughout as his own lawyer, and the result, as frequently happened, had' been unfortunate in more ways than one.

William Douglas Lysnar, ex-M.P. for Gisborne, was the plaintiff in an action heard in the Supreme Court in Wellington last week in which the claim and counter-claim totalled over £120,000. Lysnar, who sued in person, claimed £50,919 from the National Bank of New Zealand, and the bank counter-claimed for £71,990. The litigation arose out of mortgage operations concerning the plaintiff’s station at Arowhana, near Gisborne. The plaintiff’s statement of claim detailed the financial arrangements allegedly made between himself, the East Coast Commissioner, and the general manager of the National Bank, ■ and contended that the bank, after an agreement had been made on May 1, attempted to impose additional conditions on May 2. The plaintiff refused to allow the insertion of these conditions and the bank entered into possession and use of the property. The defence generally was a denial of the vital portions of the plaintiff’s claim. The bank admitted that it entered into 'possession of the property, but stated that it did so in pursuance of the powers conferred upon it by various instruments. It denied that there was any contract entered into by the plaintiff, the commissioner, and the banjj.