DISPUTE OVER LOAN

Sun (Auckland), Volume III, Issue 687, 12 June 1929, Page 11

DISPUTE OVER LOAN

BROTHERS-IN-LAW IN COURT “It’s inexplicable to me why certain portions of the claim have been abandoned—my wife has handled all my financial affairs since I’ve been married. Can’t | my wife explain it?” 'T'HIJS Charles Henry Rawlings, a ■*- lorrv-driver, of Kirikopuni, who sued William Henry Thompson, of Remuera, for £l9l loaned when both lived at Te Kopuru, before Mr. Justice Kennedy in the Supreme Court today. The original claim was for £232, but the amount was reduced to £l9l, representing money loaned by Rawlings to Thompson for investment in a quarry business at Otahuhu. Plaintiff claimed that they had taken a lease of a property at Ellerslie, agreeing to share expenses and profits, hut defendant contended that plaintiff alone was lessee and was entitled to the profits. On arrival from England plaintiff, whose fare was paid by Thompson, worked for defendant in his business ! at Te Kopuru. He advanced money to Thompson in June, 1925, to be in- j vested in the business, which was sold in November, 1927. A month later ; Thompson entered into a quarrying partnership business, and witness agreed to the transfer of his money to this enterprise. Early this year Thompson was considering the purchase of a grocery business/ and it was arranged that his money should be invested in the business. Because of a dispute with his wife the plan fell through. William Henry Thompson admitted persuading plaintiff to allow his money to be used in the business of working the quarry. He found that his position as a partner was becoming untenable after 12 months. He tried to sell out his shares, but found that by holding off he and his partner would receive a greater return. Rawlings agreed to wait for his money until witness received his. Entering judgment for the defendant. his Honour described the action as premature. There was no doubt that £l9l had been loaned, repayable on demand at first, but in later transactions no time limit for repayment i had been fixed. He was satisfied that Rawlings agreed to wait for his j money and was to receive it half in j June and September this year. Costs were allowed to defendant.