MORTGAGE CASE

Rotorua Morning Post, Volume 2, Issue 399, 7 December 1932, Page 5

MORTGAGE CASE

(Press Assn..

arowhana station MR. W. D. LYSNAR'S CLAIM AGAINST NATIONAL BANK OF N.Z. CASE FQR DEFENCE

— By Telegraph — Copyrlght)

Wellington, Monday. The hearing continued to-day in the Supreme Court, before Mr. Justive MacGregor, of Mr.__W. D. Lysnar's claim for £50,919 from the National Bank of New Zealand, and the Bank's counter-claim for £71,990, arising out of mortg'age operations concerning plaintiff's sheep station at Arowhana, Gisborne. Mr. Lysnar is conducting his own case. In opening the case for the bank, Mr. T. C. A. Hislop said that for many years Mr. Lysnar had been a customer of the bank, and large sums of money had been advanced to him, and that when he got into difficulties some years ago, the bank did everything it could to help him. When the bank had been compelled to go into possession of the property it had not done so with any idea of pressing the debtor, but because the economic circumstances compelled it to do so. The Defence | The defence was that firstly no contract had ever heen made with the bank and that the matter had never got beyond the stage of negotiations. All terms which the bank laid down must have been conveyed to the Commissioner and he must have agreed and notified the bank of this agreement before there could he any contract. A letter of May 1 was handed to Mr. Lysnar with definite Ponditions to which he agreed. It was stated definitely that the controlling management of the Arowhana Station was to be by the bank. Furthermore that any new expenditure on the place was to be subject to the bank's approval, and thirdly that arrangements satisfactory to the bank must he concluded with the Publie Trustee who held a mortgage over the front portion of the station. These terms had heen insisted upon by the bank all along. Fihilip Roderick McRae Hannah, manager of the National Bank, gave evidence that Mr. J. T. Grose, general manager of the bank, had made it clear that the bank would only agree to Mr. Lysnar coming to an arrangement with the East Coast Commissioner.

Mr. Lysnar's Control Mr. J. T. Grose, general manager of the defendant bank, confirmed the circumstances in which the marginal note was made by him. Witness did agree to the amount of control proposed to be given to Mr. Lysnar but in a letter from the Commissioner after an interview with plaintiff on May 1, the condition was added in the marginal note to which Mr. Lysnar agreed, that any expenditure was subject to the bank's approval, and that any surplus revenue was to be disposed of as the bank's right. Suhsequently plaintiff repudiated that condition. Cross-examined hy plaintiff, witness stated particulai's of conversations between the Commissioner, Mr. Lysnar and himself in which witness said that the bank was prepared to write off a sum running into some thousands to give Mr. Lysnar a fighting chance. Until March 30, prior to -correspondence there were several interviews and proposals made but to May 1, all were inconclusive. On May 1, witness laid down conditions to which he required Mr. Lysnar to agree if the bank was to assist him. Corroborative evidence was given by Henry- Bellenden Gordon, assistant manager .of the National Bank, as to what took place at the interviews when the conditions were discussed. The hearing was adjourned until tornorrow.