RAISING A LOAN.

Taranaki Daily News, 30 August 1916, Page 6

RAISING A LOAN.

A QUESTION OP FEES. In the Magistrate's Court yesterday morning E. C. Hughes sued Mrs. Clara Richards for £4 10s procuration fee on a loan of £450, and £1 Is paid to valuer. Mr. Bewley, appeared for defendant. The plaintiff deposed that he had received a written application from defendant through her agent, Mr. -Gibson (comission agent), for .t'4."io at fl per cent., of which £4OO was to pay oil' a first mortgage, at 8 per cent., and that £25 was to be paid to a second mortgagee and. £25 for expenses. The second mortgagee would realise his mortgage to enable the new loan to be secured by first mortgage, and he would take a second mortgage. Witness inspected the property with Mr. Gibson. Defendant showed them over the property. Plaintiff submitted the application to a client who required a valuation. This was made, and the loan was ultimately arranged. The result was reported to the defendant's husband, who said he would not go on with it until he heard what the costs would be. Plaintiff replied that there was no condition as to costs in the application. He, however, showed him that the costs would be £0 17s. and £1 Is fee paid for valuation. The costs of other solicitors would be £7 13s. The plaintiff said the question of costs was not raised until after the loan had been arranged. He would not have proceeded with the business until the question of Costs had been settled supposing it had been raised.

The defendant denied giving authority to raise tlie loan. Tn cross-examinn-tioii she said tho.t her husband ban acted for her in buying the property. Tie arranged evevYthing. She knew that licr husband was frying to arrange a new mortgage. A. J. Richards said that iie had asked Mr. (iibson to arrange the loan if the costs did not, exceed £lO or £ll. He knew nothing of Mr. Hughes until Mr. (iibson 'iillcd and said that he and Mr, Hughes had been down inspecting the property. He then told (iibson that he must know what the costs would he before lie went on with the loan. After the loan had been arranged he and Gibson went up and had an interview with Mr. Hughes wlio explained what the costs would be, and he refused to go on with the loan. Mr. A. R. (iib*on said that while in Mr. Kichards' shop, Kiehards asked him if he could arrange a loan. Later mi .Richards met him and asked what ho ((iibson) was doing about it. (libson asked him to go to his office. There j witness took full particulars. Nothingwas then said about costs 01 money for drainage. Witness wrote out a' full statement and sent it with a letter to Mr. Hughes. Nothing was said about costs. Witness and plaintilV inspected the property and witness told this to Mr. Richards. The latter said he wanted to know what the costs would be. That was the first time costs were mentioned. J. C. Pipe deposed that lie was present on the occasion when Kiehards spoke about costs. Mr. Bewley contended that defendant had not given authority to raise the loan, and that any authority was subject to the costs not exceeding £lO or £ll. The Magistrate held that the plaintilV had not been given any authority to raise the loan, and that the husband had, before the loan was actually ell'octcd, made a condition as to costs. Plaintill' would be non-suited, with costs Ss. Mr. Bewley waived counsel's fee.