Another case of high interest charged by an Indian moneylender iwas brought to light on Oct. 17 in HIM. Supreme Court before Judge P. Grant Jones, involving one of the principals of the former case, when Mr. K. E. Newman appeared for the defence.
Th Principals in this ease were Hazara Singh, plaintiff, and F. Chaves, defendant, whom the former Read, is suing for the' repayment of a loan of $200, made four years ago, with cumulative interest, The loan was made in October 1928, according to the evidence given by the plaintiff, who stated that, Jout of kindness, he had made no levy on the defendant during the period he was out of employment. He asserted that he had lent Chaves }$200 for which he obtained a pro-misery note, and that the loan was to carry interest at 2 per cent. per month. Since that time he had received from the borrower only $70. He denied that any farther sums had been handed to him in repay ment; that he had given receipts for the sums he had received.
In calling his client to the witness box Mr, Newman pointed out to His Lordship that it was a case of one man's word against the other, there being no witnesses to inal transaction as in the former case. "Examination elicited the fact from the witness that he had dealings with several moneylenders concurrently and that was, in fact, in their hands, and that he was forced at times to 0 to one in order to stave off another. counsel then elicited from him the information that in every instance the procedure of the Indian moneylenders had been identical: that they would tend him a certain sum and make him sign for an amount double that of the loan, plus monthly interest. "The fact that Ube pro-misery note was made out as payable one month ahead. was' their safeguard because it made it pos sible to. sue immediately if became Jdue and recover the whole amount In this instance, said the defend-lant, he had received $100 for which hho promised to pay $200 with month-interest at 2 per cent. For the first two months he had paid $10 each month. Then the plaintiff? approached him in the office where he worked and. threatened to expose him to his employers if he did not hand over a larger sum. "As "he was unable to do this the threat was carried out and he hat Job, For two years ho was unal to find another and could therefore not make any payments of interest But he repaid on the principal sums Jamounting to $70 for which he obtained receipts. In March 1931, however, he managed to find em: ployment and recommenced his pay ments, when the plaintiff came to his place of business and Jdemanded $100 as an alternative to reporting him to his employers. On this occasion he managed to give the Indian $80, but could get no receipt. He made two more payments of $10 which made the total [sum paid $190, Examined by his counsel, the defendant pointed out that although the note called for only 2 per cent. interest, the reason that all moneys paid by' him were in tens or multiples of tens was in accordance with the invariable custom of the Indian moneylender to exact 10 per cent.
Mr, Newman, outlining his case to the Judge, begged him to take into consideration the custom of the moneylenders in all the cases the had had before him. In no instance did their procedure differ, land this was significant even though there were no witnesses in this case to testify to the original transaction, He declared thi gave a bias towards the plaintiff's lease, he hoped His Lordship would guided by the provision in the Moneylenders Act of 1927 which stated that interest over 48. per unconscionable."
ould be considered "harsh and
The Judge then adjourned the case for one week for consideration.
Text read from the printed page and cleaned; old type leaves the occasional error.