ENGLISH MONEY LENDERS' DODGES.

Greymouth Evening Star, Volume XXXI, 20 June 1901, Page 3

ENGLISH MONEY LENDERS' DODGES.

In the King’s Bench division, London, recently, Mr Justice Bidlev hoard the case of “ Wilton and 00, v, Osborne ” which raised an important question under the new Money-lending Act.—The plaintiff, Messrs James Wilton and Co., moneylenders, of 215, Piccadilly sued the Eev. James Osborne, of Holten Beckering rectory, Wrogby, Lincolnshire, to recover £56, upon a promissary note, dated Nov, 18,1900, and payable by quarterly instalments of £l4.—The defence was that the defendant was entitled to relief under the recent statute.—The facts of the case, which were agreed, were that the defendant in the year 1897 wrote to the plaintiffs asking wbat would be their charge for a loan of £4O, and in the result obtained an advance of that sum, for which he gave a promissory note for £46, payable in three months. Eenewals took place from time to time, and now, with arrears of interest and principal, the £56 was sued for. It was admitted that the rate of interest was 60 per cent, but for the plaintiffs it was said that in the case of small loans, where, as in this case, there was no security, such a rate was usual. The defence was that the transaction was one in which the interest was excessive ; that it was harsh and unconscionable, and was “otherwise such that a court of equity would give relief,” and that, therefore, the court was under the Money Lending Act entitled to re-open the bargain. It was stated for the defence that the defendant had already paid £B4 for a loan of £40., and still owed £56. Further, it was said that the promissory note provided that if default was made in one of the quarterly payments, the whole sum became due, and it was pointed out that if default had been made in the first instalment, and that stipulation had been enforerd, the interest would amount to 150 or 160 per cent per annum. Such a transaction, it was said, clearly came under tho provisions of the Act. On tho other hand, it was argued that the words “ or otherwise, such as a Court of Equity would give relief,” contemplated that something should be done before tho provisions of the Act came into force, prior to its passing, would give a Court of Equity power to intervene. The arrangement as to quarterly instalments, it was said, was made for the convenience, and at tho instance of defendant, and there had been no harsh enforcement of the default clause, and no intention of so enforcing it. Under) the circumstances, it was said tho transaction did not come within the terms of tho Act. Mr Justice Ridley said the case was one of some importance, and as there did not appear to have been any decision on tho Act before, ho would take time to consider his judgment.—Judgment reserved.