THE MONEY LENDERS' ACT

Taranaki Daily News, Volume LIII, Issue 174, 2 November 1910, Page 2

THE MONEY LENDERS' ACT

ALLEGED MISREPRESENTATION. By Telegraph.—Press Association. Wellington, Yesterday. . Sitting in banco to-day, His Honor Mr. Justice Chapman heard an appeal from Mr. W. R. Haselden's decision in the civil action brought in the lower court, by Cyril W. Tanner, solicitor and registered money-lender, against Frances Jane Hare and Ernest G. K. Hare. The case in the Stipendiary Magistrate's Court involved a claim fov £IOO as balance of principal money alleged to have been due by defendants to plaintiff under the provisions of a mortgage executed by defendants in favor of Tanner. Defendants claimed £IOO damages and costs of the action. In the appeal Mr. W. H. D. Bell appeared for appellaat Tanner, and Mr, D, Mi Fiadlft-y for respondents. The Magistrate was of the opinion that the matter ought to be moved into the Supreme Court, as the case was one of considerable importance both to the legal profession and the public generally. His Worship thought that the mortgage on which the plaintiff sued was void as being in contravention of the Money Lenders Act, and that the action founded thereon must fail. If it should be ultimately held that the case could be distinguished from Gada v. Provincial Bank it might be convenient for him to.say that as regarded the present defendants the transaction was, in his opinion, harsh and unconscionable, and the account shouid be reopened and the mortgage and agreement set aside. It was contended for the plaintiff that inasmuch as the interest charged on the mortgage did not exceed 10 per cent., the plaintiff did not enter into the transaction qua money-lender but qua solicitor. His Worship did not think the contention' could be sustained. Judgment was entered for defendants, with costs as per scale. Leave to appeal was granted. To-day counsel for appellant contended, inter alia, that Tanner was not a money-lender under the Act, though he was registered, and that there had ] been no misrepresentation on his part, and that the Kelburne property haa 1 not been "foisted" upon the Hares, as ; had been suggested. . Mr. D. M. Findlay submitted that for the purpose of the Kelburne transaction that property had been grossly overvalued, that it had become burdensome to Tanner, that the latter knew : Somerville was in difficulties, and that ' the property had been foisted upon the Hares. Further, counsel argued that there had been misrepresentation by appellants. Judgment was reserved. j