BRIGADIER-GENERAL'S LOAN.

Wairarapa Daily Times, Volume LXVI, Issue 11980, 18 May 1914, Page 6

BRIGADIER-GENERAL'S LOAN.

WRINI-LE FROM THE JUDGE

In a London court recently BrigadierGeneral George Arthur Mills, of Canterbury, was sued by a moneylender for the payment of £120, balance owing on a promissory note for £1(50, dated July Hi, 1S)1.">. /The defence was that in the circumstances the transaction was harsh and unconscionable, and should be reopened.

Counsel said his client got into diiii- ( ulties through starting to breed thor* c-ughbreds at Kildare. He was temporarily embarrassed, and, seeing plaintiff's advertisement, wrote to him. Eater the defendant wrote again asking on what terms he could have a loan to be repaid by quarterly instalments. By way of answer, aud without any terms being arranged, £100 iv banknotes were sent, together with a promissory not, for £.100, repayable in four quarterly instalments of £40, which defendant was asked to sign and return. Defendant suggested that he should sign a promissory note for £1:10, as he thought, :10 per cent, or anything like that was high enough. That suggesti n showed that defendant was ignorant of rates of interest, for the quarterly payments would have made it something bke SO per cent.

Defendant said he was a retired bri-gadier-general, in receipt of a colonel's pension of £480 a year and a wounds' ]tension of £1:10 a year. / He had a private income of about £700 a. year, household furniture worth £1000, and horses worth between £500 and £000. He required the loan because his horse breeding venture proved somewhat unsatisfactory, and he sustained losses tl rough the dishonesty of a he i.d groom. Witness thought at the time that the interest proposed was 00 per cent. In March ho tendered what lie considered was reasonable, but it, was refused.

His Lordship: I tell you frankly that, if the money had been sent to mo J should have kept it, and not signed the promissory note. (Laughter).

Counsel: I do not know what would have happened to your Lordship, then (Laughter).

His Lordship: Oh, J should have offered to pay a reasonable rate. I only hope some moneylender would send me £100 like that. (Laughter). They are always pestering me. (Laughter).

His Lordship, giving judgment, said the case presented some peculiar features. Defendant was a gentleman of some knowledge of the world, and he had frequently been to moneylenders before, so that there was nothing in the point of the default clause not being explained to him. The only matter, which really troubled his lordship was the way in which the loan was effected. Defendant asked about terms, and mo answer was the money and the promissory note ready drafted for sigiuturc. They must assume that the moneylender appreciated that defendant was wanting money, and to send the money and the note was rather a trick. It was a way of binding a man without there being negotiations beforehand, and without him being able to discuss the matter. That was what it was intended to be, and the transaction must be reopened. Having regard to the promissory note as it stood, plaintiff treated defendant woll in not pressing him. Under all the circumstances, as £G0 had been paid under order of the court, in addition to the £40, first instalment, his lordship thought plaintiff was only entitled to another £30. ...