THE GREAT MONEY-LENDING CASE.

Tuapeka Times, Volume VI, Issue 279, 5 June 1873, Page 6

THE GREAT MONEY-LENDING CASE.

The Lord Chancelloi and Lord Justice iVlellish have given judgment in the case of the Earl of Aylesford v. Morris. The bill was filed by the plaintiff to set aside certain momentary transactions into which he had entered with the defendant, a professional money-lender, when he (plaintiff) was Lord Guernsey, and under age. The substantial question in the case was whether, upon a loan of about £7,000, £60 per cent, per annum (instead of the ordinary £5 per cent.) was too large a rate of interest jbr the lender to exact from the borrower. Vice-Chancellor Wickens. before whom the case was oiiginally heard, made a decree in the plaintiff's favor (allowing only 5 per cent.,) but without costs as against Morris, who appealed from that decision, and contended that he was ontitled to £60 per cent, in teresi. Mr. .Dickinson and Mr. Jones Bateraan were counsel for the plaintiff ; Mr. B. K. Karslake, Mr. Holt (of the Common Law Bar), and Mr. F. T. White for the defendant ; and Mr. Bristowe and Mr. T. A Roberts for another party to the transactions. The Lm-d Chancellor, in giving judgment, said the abolition of the usury laws did not relieve persons who lent money to expoctanc heirs from the onus of proving that the transaction was free from oppression and extortion. The victims of those persons who pandered to the extiavagance of young men of fortune during their minority came to them in the dark and in fetters, without either the will or the power to take care of themselves, .-md with nobody else to take care of them. Eminent judges had said there was a great public policy in restraining transactions of that kind. The plaintiff had only attained his majority nine months before the last transactions, which it was the object of this suit to set aside. He was without professional advice when he entered into these transactions, in which for an actual advance of £7,007 he gave the defendant bills of exchange, payable in nine months, for £1.1,000, the rate of interest being £60 percent. If the bills were not paid at maturity, and other bills were given at the same rate of interest, the debt would have been about doubled in the course of every year. The defendant had utterly failed to show any ground that entitled him to more than the ordinary interest of £5 per cent, on the money which he had advanced to the plaintiff, and therefore the decision of Vice-Chancellor Wickens must be affirmed. The plaintiff within a month must pay with interest at £5 per cent, what might have been found due to the defendant, and as it was only just that he should pay the price of obtaining his freedom from the extortionate rate of interest which the defendant had imposed on him, that part of the Vice-Chancellor's decision directing him to pay the defendant's cost of suit would remain undisturbed ; but the defendant must pay the costs of the appeal. Lord Justice Mellish concurred. The decision of the court below is therefore affirmed.