LOANS TO BROTHER

Gisborne Herald, Volume LXVI, Issue 20119, 13 December 1939, Page 4

LOANS TO BROTHER

CLAIM FOR £IOB2 PLAINTIFF SUCCEEDS FULL AMOUNT ALLOWED •‘Judgment will be for the plaintiff for the amount claimed, including the interest claimed, with costs on the highest scale, plus disbursements and witnesses’ expenses to be fixed by the registrar, with £ls 15s for one extra day. There will be an order for the plaintiff to uplift from the court the amount paid into court, such sum to go in partial discharge of the amount of the judgment,” said Mr. Justice Blair in his reserved decision, delivered to-day, in a case heard at the last session of the Gisborne Supreme Court, in which Humphrey Golden O’Sullivan, a Ruatoria labourer, claimed £IOB2 3s 7d and interest from his brother, Michael Francis O’Sullivan, a farmer in the same district, the amount being made up of money loaned and the value of services rendered. The plaintiff was represented by Mr. D. C. Purdie, Instructed by Mr. G. J. Jeune, and the defendant by Mr. L. T. Burnard, with him Mr. D. W. lies. In 1927 the defendant paid his brother £lO and His Honour viewed that as in reduction of the general indebtedness. It was agreed that the mutton, valued at £l2, supplied in 1931 or 1932, should come off the general account. Other payments of small amounts also had been made to reduce the general indebtedness.

“Before me the defendant gave evidence that the plaintiff had agreed to accept £4OO as the amount of the debt,” continued His Honour. “This is denied by the plaintiff and I have no hesitation in disbelieving the defendant’s evidence on this point.” "The main portion of the proceedings before the Adjustment Commission related to the carrying capacity of the farm with a view to fixing the basic rent. The chairman read out the list of unsecured debts, including the plaintiff’s as being for £4OO. The point is now made that because Mr. Jeune happened to be there when that list was read out he should have complained that it was understated. Mr. Burnard, himself, knew that the debt was claimed as being £lOBl 15s and there was just as high, if not a higher, duty on him to make the correction if correction were called for. In my view the defendant cannot now take advantage of his default in that matter. “The defendant’s defence to this claim is most discreditable,” said His Honour. “His brother came to his assistance with all his savings and saw the defendant over his troubles during the years of depression, and having, with his brother’s assistance, got on to his feet, his acknowledgement for that is an attempt to meet his brother’s just claim by a mere technical defence.”