Te Aroha AND Ohinemuri News SATURDAY, AUGUST 14, 1909. MONEY-LENDING.

Te Aroha News, Volume XXVII, Issue 4449, 14 August 1909, Page 2

Te Aroha AND Ohinemuri News

SATURDAY, AUGUST 14, 1909. MONEY-LENDING.

This above all—to thine own self be true, ind tt must follow as the night the day Thou oanst not then be false to any man Shakespeare.

A few days ago in Auckland, a case was decided in the Stipendary Magistrate’s Court, which is of great importance to all persons who. are borrowing or lending money at a higher rate of interest than ten per centum per annum. It appeared that a person lent some money to another on a Bill of Sale and as the borrower made default in payment, the lender summoned the borrower for the amount, but the plaintiff lost the case and his money too, because of a mere technicality; for instance, he had lent the money at other than his registered addressThe Liberal Government in New Zealand has brought in many measures since 1890, with a view to benefitting the working classes. That all those measures have answered their original purpose we cannot say; but we do say that the laws were placed upon the Statute Book with the best of intentions to confer benefit upon the working classes. Such laws are now

numerous and more are platedOne of these laws, passed for the special benefit of the manual toilers, and of poor persons who have been overtaken by misfortune and driven to borrowing is the Money Lender’s Act, of 1901. In it the law defines every person or corporate body a money-lender if he, or it, lends money at more than ten per cent per annum, including any payments or deductions by way of premium, fine, or foregift. The law requires that a money-lender shall register himself as such in accordance with the regulations of the Act, and that he shall also register his address or addresses at which he carries on his business of money-lending. If a money-lender fails to register himself and his place of business or if he carries on business under a false name, or if he does business in any other than the registered premises, he is liable to a fine of a £IOO for the first offence, and for a second offence he liable to a fine of £IOO and to three-months imprisonment besides, at the discretion of the Court. It was through transacting the business at another place than that registered he infringed the law and lost the suit in Court.

The Act also provides that not withstanding any agreement, the Court may, any time within a year year from the completion of the loan, review the whole transaction, and, if it be thought necessary or desirable decide what would be a fair remuneration and can order the restitution of some of the charges and expenses. It can even go so far in cases, which the Court may hold to be harsh and unconscionable, as to call upon any other person than the money-lender to make restitution. For instance, if a solicitor or an agent were in such cases to charge more than a fair and usual procuration fee, he also might be called upon by the Court to disgorge. We learn that the recently decided case has caused a littlo consternation amongst a good many persons who hold Bills of Sale, because a strict adherence to the letter of the law has not been rigidly followed. It is evident that the law is far reaching and that the effects of a breach of it may prove extremely serous. The infliction of a fine of £SOO upon a corporate body seems a heavy penalty. Evidently the object of the Legislature has been to protect the innocent, inexperienced, and the poor. Whether the law will prove to be an unmixed blessing is hard to say. In byegone days when the Church and State co-operated to check usury, the cure was in many cases worse than the disease, and we learn of cases to-day where the Money-Lenders Act obstructs bona-fide business and entails hardships on the needy. It sometimes happens that men and women require to borrow a sum of £2O to £4O, which in business they could turn to very profitable account if they could get it at a higher than the usual rate; but owing to the meshes of the law, some of which are veritable traps, lenders button up their pockets and the transaction is blocked. It requires vast experience and culture to pass economic statues that will suitably blend with natural laws and the multitudinous laws of human nature. Some legislation, like that in the days of the Tudors, intended to confer a benefit upon the people proved to be extremely mischievous, and it behoves all electors to see that they send the wisest and best available men to Parliament to make laws for the people. New Zealanders are governed as well as they deserve to be gowned because they have power in their own bagjg-