EX-M.P. AT LAW

Rotorua Morning Post, Volume 2, Issue 398, 6 December 1932, Page 5

EX-M.P. AT LAW

(Press Assn.—

A BIG CLAIM DISPUTE OVER WELL KNOWN EAST COAST STATION COUNTER CLAIM LODGED

-By Telegraph — Copyrlght)

Wellington, Monday. William Douglas Lysnar, ex-mem-ber of Parliament for Gisborne, is the plaintiff in an action being heard in the Supreme Court in which there Js a claim and counter claim totalling over £120,000. Mr. Lysnar, who is suing in pei-son is claiming £50,919 from the National Bank of New Zealand Limited, and the Bank is coun-ter-claiming £71,910. The allegations arose over an East Coast sheep station. Mr. Justice McGregor is on the berch. Mr. Lysnar is conducting his own case and Messrs T. G. A. Hislop and G. R. Pov/ell are appearing for the National Bank. Prior to March 14, 1931, plaintiff was the registered proprietor of Arowhana station near Gisborne, consisting of a back portion of 13,608 acres over which the East Coast Commissioner held a mortgage of approximately £21,700, including arrears of interest, and a front portion of 7820 acres, subject to a mortgage to the Public Trustee of £39,082. In April 1916, plaintiff mortgaged his total equity in the land to the National Bank, and some years later instituted a, further mortgage to the bank over a piece of freehold land comprising six acres and also over the live stock on the stationOwing to the collapse of the wool and stock markets, and statement of claim alleged, the banlc's insisting on retaining all the available revenue from the station, plaintiff fell into arrears with the interest to the Public Trustee and the East Coast Commissioner, and the latter, in March sold the back portion of the station and bonght it in himself for £13,608. As it was submitted that Arowhana could not be advantageously worked without the back portion. plaintiff at the request of the general manager of the Bank, entered into negotiations with the Commissioner aud general manager to arrange some plan of working the station to the advantage of all parties, and to secure a fresh tenure of the back portion. As a result, the three parties entered into a contract whereby the commissioner agreed to lease the back portion of the station to plaintiff* for five years with right to purchase for £13,000. The dcfendant bank agreed to reduce plaintiff's loan from the bank to the sum gC £30,000 to be secured by a mortgage subject to the existing mortgages to the Public Trustee over the front and back portions, including stock for five vears at five ner cent.

Plaintiff alleged that the contract was entered into on May 1, 1931, but on May 2, the general manager attempted to vai-y it by. imposing additional conditions on plaintiff. When plaintiff refused to allow the insertion of these conditions, defendant served notice on plaintiff, and subsequently tl*.e bank, it was alleged entered into possession and still rctained possession of the front portion of the station and all live stock and chattels on the whole of the station, 220 bales o:i wool 939 carcases of frozen mutton and lambs and 6283 sheep and k.mbs, which plaintiff had sought. The defence generally was a denial of plaintiff's claim. The bank admits that it entered into possession of tlxe property.