AMATEUR MONEY LENDER

Sun (Christchurch), Volume I, Issue 203, 1 October 1914, Page 10

AMATEUR MONEY LENDER

DEALINGS AN EDUCATION. In the civil jurisdiction of the Magistrate's Court this morning, Joshua Little (Mr T. W. Rowe) claimed from Samuel L. Dennis (Mr Gresson) the sum of £lls 13/6, balance due to him as the payee of a promissory note for £l6O dated July 30, 1912, made by Robert Pitcaithly and payable 24 months after date to the plaintiff or order and endorsed by the defendant, the note having been dishonoured on presentment. Plaintiff also claimed a further sum of £1 6/10 for interest at 8 per cent, down to the date of judgment, making the total claim £ll7 10/4. Harry Edward Boardman recognised the promissory note produced, drawn up in his own handwritings. He had seen it signed by Mr Pitcaithly. Dennis had admitted to him having signed the note. Cross-examined by Mr Gresson, Mr Boardman admitted having been Mr Little's financial agent for six months. The present note was for £l6O, £6O interest and £IOO principal. The rate of interest had been 30 per cent, for two years. Witness had got £5 commission for arranging the loan. Witness knew that during the six months in question Mr Little had given Mr Kesteven money to have it invested for him. There "might have been six transactions during his dealings with Mr Little. The rate of interest had never been less than 30 per cent. Mr Gresson applied for a non-suit, pointing out that. when, the case had been heard previously a non-suit had been granted.' .Three points had beenraised: (1) That the note was a note of condition; (2) the plaintiff was a moneylender; (3) the note was not ■due. Mr Gresson admitted that notice was given to the endorser on August J, when the note had been dishonoured. He would raise four points on which a nonsuit might be granted—first, the note was a collateral security; secondly, that it was not an unconditional promise to pay; thirdly, that the plaintiff was a money-lender, and not registered; and fourthly, that the security had been realised, and the surety had not been notified. • Joshua Little, plaintiff in the action, said that he had refused to lend money to Mr Pitcaithly on several occasions, but when he had eventually done so he had told him that if he would pay him promptly he would reduce the interest. He' admitted having entered into about six transactions through Mr Boardman. Most of these had been for' small amounts. He had refused to make the loau to Mr Pitcaithly until he had got Mr Dennis's signature to the promissory no.te. Of the £l6O he got only £44 back. Mr Rowe: You don't make a living out of money lending! ;. Mr Little: No, I lose on it. This "little flutter was an education. Witness explained that he was living on money invested in first mortgage, and ho had a life-interest in his wife's estate. Mr Gresson: What induced you to enter into these transactions'? Witness: To tell you the truth, I was very imprudent to do it. Mr Bishop: Did he say that he had known Mr Boardman for years, and yet made him his financial agent? That's a most extraordinary statement. From further questions put to witness by Mr Gresson, it appeared that if his plans had not miscarried, he would on several of the\ transactions have received up to 75 per cent, interest. His Worship stated that he could

come to no other conclusion but that the plaintiff had brought himself within the meaning of the Money Lenders Act. It might be hard on him because he did not think Mr Little regarded himself in any way as following the occupation of £ money lender; but when a man entered into a transaction of this kind at high rates of interest, engaged a man like Boardman, and lent money to Kesteven, he was to all intents and purposes a money lender, and the fact that he had no registered office made the transactions void. Mr Bishop continued to say that he was not going to express any opinion on the other points, although he had grave doubts .as to their strength, especially the first one. He held that the application for the nonsuit should be granted, and the plaintiff was non-suited with costs.