A Sikh money lender's claim which proved to be unfounded and to have been brought against an ex-partner in the business as a matter of revenge, was decided by his Honour Judge Grain in H. M. Supreme Court last Friday. Plaintiff, Ganda Singh, had obtained judgment against Asa Singh for $314, balance of $1,368 due in connexion with a money-lending partnership. Judgment went by default, but later Asa Singh appeared in court and asked for a re-hearing of the matter, on the ground that he did not defend the case because a settlement had been arrived at and the account settled on his paying $54. For the rehearing yesterday, Mr. R. C. Faithfull appeared on behalf of plaintiff.
Defendant, who is a police constable, swore that the dispute had been submitted to arbitration by a Sikh Police Inspector, assisted a sergeant, a constable and a priest. It was found that witness owed plaintiff $54, and this he paid, borrowing the money from the constable. Plaintiff thereupon gave a receipt, produced, recording this settlement.
In answer to Mr, Faithfull, defendant said the partnership began without any capital.
Counsel—You could not start money lending without money.
His Lordship.—My experience is that is just what they will do. They borrow money to lend money.
Defendant added that he had discovered plaintiff in his house attempting to assault his wife. For this act, he was dismissed from the police force, and was bringing these proceedings to get his revenge, money lending by an officer of the force being against the regulations.
Inspector Buddha Singh described the arbitration, which he conducted. Having first obtained their consent to the proceedings, he called them together, with witnesses, and asked them to produce promissory notes of money lent to Chinese under the partnership. In this way it was found that Asa Singh was due $45 to plaintiff; and to this sum wag added $9, half the cost of the legal proceedings. The money was paid and the receipt given by plaintiff. Witness corroborated defendant's story as to the assault on his. wife and the dismiss sal of plaintiff from the police.
Other witnesses gave similar evidence, and when plaintiff was called he was unable to refute their story.
His Lordship accordingly rescinded the original judgment and found in favour of defendant. Incidentally, he mentioned that in claiming legal expenses from defendant, plaintiff had charged twice the sum which he paid into court.
Text read from the printed page and cleaned; old type leaves the occasional error.