LYSNAR CASE

Rotorua Morning Post, Volume 2, Issue 559, 16 June 1933, Page 5

LYSNAR CASE

(Press Assn.-

APPEAL AGAINST DEClSION DISMISSED BY COURT ONE JUDGE DISS'ENTS

-By Telegraph— Copyright).

Wellington, Thursday. The Court of Appeal this morning delivered reserved judgment in the case of William Douglas Lysnar, of Gisborne, against the National Bank of New Zealand, heard in March. A majority of the Court, Mr. Justice Reed and Mr. Justice Smitli, held that the appeal should be dismissed. In Angust, 1932, a writ was issued by Lysnar against the bank claiming over £50,000 for alleged breach of contract. After a hearing in the Supreme Court extending over four days, Mr. Justice MacGregor gave judgment against plaintiff, allowing £250 by way of costs. An applicatipn was made in the Court of Appeal by Mr. Lysnar to reverse this deeision. In the pleadings in the Court below plaintiff alleged that the bank agreed to reduce his liability for prior advances to £30,000, provided plaintiff secured from the East Coast Commissioner a further lease on the back portion of his property for a further term. Plaintiff claimed damages for loss of equity in his farm property, of which the bank had taken possession, for value of live stock and chattels, and for the increase of his liability to the East Coast Commissioner. The trial jxidge held that a contract had not been proved.

In the coneluding portion of their joint judgment, their Honours state: "We are of opinion that the appellant has proved neither a tripartite contract, nor, if two contracts were intended in form, that the contract between himself and the bank ever became operative. In the result, the judgment appealed from, in our opinion, is right and the appeal must be dismissed with costs on the highest scale, but not as from a distance." Mr. Justice Ostler said he should have liked to agree with the judgment of the majority of the Court, but he was unable to do so. Even if he could, and if the appellant had succeeded in the full ampunt of his claim it appeared to him that the appellant would still be hopelessly insolvent, bepause he claimed only £50,000 and the bank's claim against him amounted to £70,000. For this reason all the litigation seemed to be merely beating the air. For reasons contained in his written judgment he was of opinion that the appeal should be allowed.