Moneylender's Victim Sudgment and costs were given against the plaintiff on May 18 in "Me Supreme 'Court when the ad: joanned heaving of the action Chanchal Singh v. Mr. James. Chu game up_ before. Judge P. Grant Jones. 'Counsel were Mfr, J. O. One derson Zor the piaintt! and, Mi. KO, Newman for the defendant, 'The. plainti' claimed the sum {$1,520 on two promissory notes and further $196.80 due on interest unpaid from April 1932 to April 1993 Magainst this the defendant claim ed'that. the first. promissory note was covered by the second; that the equal amount borrowed was only $410, and that a sum of $1,590 had een' paid in interest Ko the close of the. preliminary Hearing some time ago the evidence Sneehlef of the defendant had been eorcluded, Mr, Anderson reserving} hin cross-examination, With his permission, the next wit called, Mr. Newman say-Ihe derived to re-call the defendant later.
Mr. W, L. Dismeyer was, then ud stated. thas in 1929 he had borrowed $100 from the plaint-'Int signing for $200 at 2 per cent, inletest per month. "He had paid en per cent, interest a month, how-fever, redeeming the note later with *@U00. He had redeemed the Rote about fourteen months: later, this Working out at about "140 por cent. interest, His Lordship, he submitted, would require very strong evidence' before hho supported verbal evidence only {in the face of written evidence in the form of the two promissory notes.
His Lordship, giving judgment, said that he accepted. the defen~
very material witnesses, He found dant' story 08, supported by. the that the second promissory note and algo accepted toment as to the amount he had actually paid the mioneylender—$1,590. He was prepared to grant' the defendant re-Hef against any further action.
Mr. Newman asked for costs, as his client could not afford to pay them, and plaintiff's counsel raising no objections, costs were avatded to the defendant.
Text read from the printed page and cleaned; old type leaves the occasional error.