EX-M.P. V. BANK

Hokitika Guardian, 6 December 1932, Page 5

EX-M.P. V. BANK

MR LYSNAR’S CASE

818 CLAIM AND COUNTER-CLAIM#

fPer Press Association — Coyy’r'ght.)

WELLINGTON, December S. William Douglas Lysnar, ©x-M.P. for Gisborn e , was the plaintiff iff tafrt action heard in the Supreme Court, to-day in which the claim and counter-claim total over, £120,000. Mr Lysnar, who is s suing in person is claiming £50,919 from the National Bank of New Zealand, and the Bank is counter-claiming for £71,990. The litigation ha s arisen over an East Coast sheep station, Arowhana, near Gisborne. Mr Justice MacGregor was on the Bench. . Mr Lysnar is conducting his own case, and Messrs T. C. A. Hislop and G. R. Powle s appear for the National Bank.

The plaintiff© statement of claim derails the financial arrangements allegedly made between himself, the East Coast Commissioner, and the General Manager of the National Bank, and he contends that the Bank, after the agreement had been made on May Ist, 1932, attempted to impose additional conditions on iMay 2. The plaintiff had refused to allow the insertion of these conditions, and the Bank entered into the possession, and r&o of the property. The defence, generally, is a denial of vital portions of the plaintiff’s claim. The Bank admits -that it entered into possession of the property, but it that ft did ©o in pursuance of powers conferred upon it by various .instruments. The Bank denied there was any contract entered into by the plaintiff, the Commissioner and the Bank.

•Plaintiff outlined his case at some length. He mentioned, correspondence between himself and the Bank in regard to the arrangements for securities to the Bank, and in reference to a new tenure for a “back portion’’ of. the station without which the remainder the station could not be worked to advantage.

Mr Lysnar proceeded to give evidence concerning the contract which be claimed was made between himself an-.* the Bank, after arrangements had been completed for a fresh tenure of the back portion. Counsel for the Bank, cross-examin-ing Mr Lysnar, sought to ©how that th e contract made was. subject- to certain conditions, the most important being that the Bank wa© to. have. control of the management of M.r Lysnar's property, and that the plaintiff had repudiated the conditions.

The plaintiff contended that Mr JT. Grose, General Manager of the Bank, wanted to control th e . management altogether. He refused, except that new expenditure should bo subject to hifl approval. Replying to counsel, plaintiff admitted writing to the Public Trustee on June 27, 1951, saying that he was unable to. complete arrangements with the Bank, .adding a postscript: “I undertake not to allow myself to take advantage of the provisions of the Mortgagors’, Relief Act,' 1931.’’ The followering month he withdrew this undertaking, as the Bank had gone t 0 the Public Trustee to make terms' regarding hi© property, while he (the pontiff) was negotiating to get money to pay the Bank off. The hearing was adjourned until tomorrow.