LOAN AND OIL SHARES.

Taranaki Daily News, 2 September 1921, Page 7

LOAN AND OIL SHARES.

SUPREME COURT ACTION,

NEW PLYMOUTH DEAL.

INVOLVED TRANSACTIONS. An involved, claim and counter-claim in connection with, certain borrowing and oil share transactions, occupied the attention of Mr. Justice Adams in the Supreme Court at Auckland on Tuesday. George William Minter, retired indent merchant, Wellington, claimed £305 and interest at 8 per cent, on £192 from December, 1920, from Percy Arthur Hadley, coyipany manager, Auckland. The defendant counter-claim-ed from the plaintiff £1231 and. interest at 8 per cent, from November, 19’20. The statement of claim alleged that in November, 1917, the plaintiff agreed to lend defendant £lOOO to enable him to enter into a contract with the British Petroleum Development Company, Ltd., to supply and erect an oil-boring plant and certain buildings at New Plymouth. The defendant gave a promissory note for six months in part security for the advance, and also executed a mortgage agreeing to repay the money in July, 1918, but it was provided that if the defendant did not receive the moneys as anticipated from the company, tne term of payment should be extended to such date as he did receive it, and in that event he was to pay 8 per cent, interest. The promissory note, it was stated, was dishonored, but notwithstanding the fact that he had not then entered into any contract with the company, the defendant did not repay the money. Prior to July, 1918, the plaintiff issued a writ claiming the return of the money, and the defendant filed a coun-ter-claim for £1927 and interest for seven ‘‘Fetch’* shares, payments for which were deferred until realisation of sale or disposal of Fetch’s property at New Plymouth. Tn the action it was decided that the £lOOO was not payable until after July, 1918, and that the plaintiff’s action was premature, and he was therefore non-suited, while in regard to the counter-claim, the defendant was also non-suited on the ground that there had not been any realisation of sale or disposal of Fetch’s property. In February, 1919, the plaintiff was paid £525 for the deferred “Fetch” shares, and he gave defendant credit for' that amount, also for £282 received from J. P. Newman. About this time the defendant entered into a contract with the company for the supply and erection of a boring plant, and this had been completed, and the defendant received £5)000 for it. The defendant refused to pay the balance of the money owing by him to plaintiff. The statement of defence alleged that if the jpromissory note given by Hadley wu's presented for payment it was presented before any money was due thereunder. The defendant admitted that he did not repay to plaintiff the £lOOO borrowed. He alleged that plaintiff had been paid £9OO in respect of the sale or realisation of twelve Fetch shares, and contended that plaintiff should have given him credit for that amount instead of £525. He further alleged that the plaintiff had sold “Fetch” deferred shares, in the British Petroleum Development Company, Ltd., and shares in the Associated Oil Corporation, Ltd., and had received in respect thereof £2031. He maintained that after deducting the £lOOO loan the plaintiff owed him £1231. The counterclaim was defended on a number of grounds. The addresses of counsel lasted all day, no evidence being called. His Honor reserved judgment.