A LOAN TRANSACTION

Hokitika Guardian, 18 October 1929, Page 3

A LOAN TRANSACTION

MONEY BORROWED ON RACECOURSE. AUCKLAND, October 16. A claim in which loans were concerned was brought in the Supreme Court to-day before Mr Justice Herdman by Dan Tye, slaughterman, of Papatoetoe, against J. M. Eiiff, and A. C. A. 'Sexton, executors of the estate of the late F. S. Tyler, formerly agent% .t Tl®r.'fihriin was for the recovery of £soo' in respect of an LQ,U,., . £4&.- .in..4iespeqt. ! oL . a second 1.0. U. and £lO in respect of a dishonoured cheque.., . Plaintiff stated in/eyMeijile..tfilML he had been in the Papaptoetuc district for fourteen Real’s. He Aildi the late Mr Tyler became close friends after meeting* on the Ellerslie racecourse at Easter, 1926, at which time plaintiff was the owner of the racehorses Ruffles and Orchus. He won a race on each day of the two days of that meeting, the financial result being something like £2OOO. Knowing that he had become richer by that sum the late Mr Tyler borrowed £llOO and gave plantiff an 1.0. U. on an envelope as security. It was understood that the loan was to be for a short while to tide over a business shortage, and that no interest Avas to be paid. Two or three months later' plaintiff asked Mr Tyler if he could give some better security tnan an 1.0. U. The latter said he had to go to England on business. As plaintiff wanted his money to buy a motor-ear Mr Tyler suggested that he could procure one for plaintiff in England cheaper. An arrangement was made accordingly. Plaintiff stated that Mr Tyler gave him 500 shares m Tylers, Ltd., these being £1 shares fully paid up. He also handed him a document covering 200 shares in the Craig Plough Attachment, Ltd. and wrote out an T.O.Lj. for £oOO, making a present of 100 shares. W itness understood that the “Plough shares had fallen flat. Mr Tyler did not bring a car from England, statinor that he had been financially embarrassed at Home, but remarking that he could finance any car hero. Plaintiff selected a car costing £625, and in part payment put in a light car valued at £9O. He took it that the car was bought in Tyler’s name. The difference between the £625 and ’the £9O was in reduction of the S»

amount owing to plaintiff. No other amount in reduction of the debt had been received. When Tyler returned from England he borrowed £50," and a few days before he died witness cashed Tyler’s cheque for £lO. Plaintiff went to see Tyler in response to

a telephone call. Tyler said: “The car is paid for and will be duly transferred to you.” He also said that if plaintiff did not mind he would prefer the shares and- when they were handed to him he tore them up.

To his' Honour. The cheque for £lO was dishonoured. He had a further LQ U, from Mr Tyler, but it was lost. - After hearing evidence for the defence, including that of Tyler’s widow 'Who said she had disapproved of her Husband's friendship with Tye), the judge: .awarded plaintiff £455 'and, .costs, ;; - •