ACTION AGAINST BANK

Manawatu Standard, Volume LIII, Issue 16, 16 December 1932, Page 13

ACTION AGAINST BANK

JUDGMENT FOR DEFENDANT. WELLINGTON, Dec. 16. Finding that tho plaintiff, William Douglas Lysnar, farmer, Gisborne, had failed to prove that the National Bank of New Zealand entered into tho contract alleged when pursuing his claim against tlie bank for £50,919 for alleged wrongful possession, Mr Justice MacGregor, in his judgment delivered in the Supreme Court yesterday, said that plaintiff had no cause of action, and entered judgment for the defendant bank.

Plaintiff alleged that the bank had wrongfully taken possession of his farm property at Arowhana Station, near Gisborne, stock, horses and stores, and. claimed the damages stated. The bank denied any contract, and counterclaimed for £71,000 due on March 31 last under mortgages and instruments of security, plus interest and hank charges to date. Evidence was given on behalf of the defendant bank to show that the plaintiff was never intended to have unconditional control of the management of the station, that any new exEendituro was to be subject to the auk’s approval, and any surplus revenue was to oe disposed of as the bank advised.

In giving judgment His Honour said : “One cannot help feeling sympathy for tho plaintiff in his financial misfortunes, but these appear in this case to have influenced Ins better judgment and led him to adopt a litigious course foredoomed to failure. . . The whole action appeare to have been launched by the plaintiff upon a mistaken view of the principles of law which apply to contracts of the kind in question here. . . . Apparently obsessed by those mistaken views of the law applicable to the facts of the matter, the plaintiff proceeded with this action, relying almost entirely upon his own verbal evidence, apart from the documents' produced. As was almost inevitable, his evidence was obviously shaped and coloured by him to support his preconceived but mistaken views concerning tho law applicable. “In tlie result,” said His Honour, “I regret to say that I cannot rely on that evidence whore it is in conflict with the evidence called on behalf of the defendant bank. . . Any confusion or misunderstanding that arose was in fact largely due to the plaintiff’s conduct in assuming to act as intermediary between the bank and the commissioner, while giving his full confidence to neither of the parties with whom lie was dealing, and thus to some extent deceiving both.” Judgment was entered for the defendant bank.

Plaintiff conducted his owji case, and Mr T. (J. A. Hislop, with him Mr G. R. Powles, appeared for the National. Bank.