AN IMPORTANT CASE.

Gisborne Times, Volume IX, Issue 894, 18 May 1903, Page 2

AN IMPORTANT CASE.

CLAIM AGAINST BANK AND ASSETS COMPANY.

By Telegraph—Press Association—

Napier, last night. In the Supremo Court on Saturday tho case Hamilton v. Bank of New Zealand and Assets Realisation Board was heard. Plaintiffs claim, as outlined by Counsel, was that in 1807 he leased Mangatoi o block, then in a very wild state, from tho

Natives, lor 21 years. In course of bus;-' ness lie had monetary dealing., with the New Zealand Loan and Mercantile Agency Company, and in 1881 owed then £12,000 on mortgage, which mortgage was at the instigation of the Napier manager of the flank of New Zealand, taken over by the latter institution, which continued to lend him money wherewith to improve tbe property, with the understanding that when the estate hau been improved up to a fixed iimit a further limit was to bo arranged in order that additional advances could be made to enable plaintiffs to improve up to tbe point agreed upon. In

this way l he limit had been increased up to £45,000, when tiic Bank became pressed for money and suggested that Hamilton should raise the money ori fixed mortgage. The plaintiff essayed to do so, and euteied into negotiations for a loan of £40,1)00, which however the Bank objected to, and arra.'.ged to carry plaintiff on as before. Subsequent efforts to arrange a mortgage outside of tbe bank were nullified by me bank’s objections, and in 1889 tiie bank instructed the Registrar of tbe Supreme Court to seii, the amount of their claim being £O9 000 or £70,000. Plaintiff asserted that a proper settlement of accounts had never been made, and if this had been done ids indebtedness would be found to be less than the amount

claimed at the sale. No one attended except one of the solicitors of the bank. He bid £SOOO for the property, and it was knocked down for that amount. Tho stock was not said, but was registered. The property fiziaiiy passed into the hands of the Assets Board in 1896, when it was valued on behalf of the bank at £189,000. Dr Findlay said the bank had

spent £70,000 upon it. It had only been leasehold, and to make it freehold has alone cost £1 per acre. For the plaintiff i: was contended that the property was always worth lucre than any just claim the bank had upon it. The plaintiff gave evidence in accordance with counsel’s

statement, his evidence being unfinished when tho Court adjourned for the day,