SUPREME COURT.

Star (Christchurch), Issue 4572, 17 February 1893, Page 4

SUPREME COURT.

- . ♦ -i [Pbb Pjbess Assooiation.l WELLINGTON, Fbb. 16. In the Supreme Court, to-day, an action , was, began in which the Colonial Bank* ■ seeka to recover f rpto Mrs T. K. MacdonalcL various suina o? money. The plaintiffs alleged that; by a.deed of August 15, 1890, ' made between defendant . and the Colonial Bank, the Bank made an advance of ,£4600, covenanting that on demand by the Bank, ■or any of its representatives, she would pay any balance whioh might be due on account of the said Bum of j54500, or any other sums which might be advanced, together with interest at the rate of 7 per cent, and further that until such demand she would pay interest at the rate aforesaid on J84500, or on such sum as might for the time being be owing, by equal half-yearly payments on August 31 and Feb. 28 in each year, without any deduction. Defendant, it was alleged, had made default in the performance of her said covenants, and had wholly refused and nogleoted to pay the said sums of £4,500 and -E631 7a ia. The plaintiffs therelore prayed judgment for the said sums and interest on the cum of .£4500 from August 15, 1892, to the date of judgment, together with costs of the action. Defendant, in her statement, says she did not covenant, as alleged in Paragraphs 2 and 3 of the plaintiff's statement. The plaintiff . corporation is only authorised to carry on . in New Zealand all snoh business as is usual or lan ful for establishments carrying on banking, except taking as collateral security for any advances of money made by it, or any money due to it, any lands, houses or other real or personal property, and the deed and instrument of mortgage mentioned'is ultra vires. The powers conferred by " The Colonial Bank of New Zealand Aot, 1874," upon the plaintiffs are void and of non-effect. As a seoond defence Mrs Maodonald says that, if it be proved that she did covenant, as alleged, with the plaintiffs contemporaneously with the execution of the deed and instrument of mortgage by writing, she declared thai the deed and memorandum of mortgage (if , any) was executed on the express condi- . tion that the moneys thereby covenanted to be paid should not become due and payable, and that the plaintiff should not take any .steps to realise the amount thereby secured for two years from August 15, 1891. Plaintiffs bave taken possession of furniture in her residence to the value of j -6485. She denies tbat she made default. Ab a counter claim she states that the \ plaintiffs also took possession of a number | of her properties in the city, and she 9 claims poßaeesion of the premises and profits from August 15, 1892, j