Ambrose J:

This was an appeal by the plaintiff in the action against a decision of the District Court. The action was brought to recover the sum of $605.82 alleged to be due upon a promissory note dated 21 February 1958. It was not disputed that at the time of making the loan the plaintiff was a moneylender within the meaning of the term as defined in the old Moneylenders Ordinance (Cap. 193 of the 1955 edition of the Laws of the Colony of Singapore). The learned District Judge found that the account of the loan which the plaintiff was required to keep under s. 7(1) of the old Moneylenders Ordinance was not in order. For that reason he dismissed the plaintiff's claim.

The District Judge made three criticisms as regards the account in question. The first was that in entering the payment of a sum of $120 made by the defendant on 2 March 1959 the plaintiff wrote $120 over other figures. In my view, although the entry appeared untidy, it was legible and showed the correct amount, and the plaintiff complied with the requirements of s. 7(1).

The second criticism made by the District Judge was that this amount of $120 was credited to interest instead of principal. In my opinion, this criticism was not justified. The agreed rate of interest was 480 per annum. The amount of the principal was $700. The interest payable per mensem was therefore $28. A sum of $28 was paid as interest on 2 April 1958; and another sum of $28 was paid as interest on 3 May 1958. Ten months' interest was in arrear on 2 March 1959. This amounted to $280. The plaintiff was fully entitled to treat the sum of $120 paid by the defendant on 2 March 1959, as a payment to interest.

The third criticism was that a sum of $100 which was paid by the defendant to the plaintiff on 8 November 1959, was credited to interest instead of principal. I had to consider whether that criticism was justified. On that date the plaintiff was entitled under the terms of the promissory note to interest at the rate of $28 per month for 20 months, i.e. $560, less the interest already paid, which was $176. The arrears of interest on that date thus amounted to $384. He was, therefore, entitled to credit the sum of $100 to interest. The uncontradicted evidence of the plaintiff was that he ceased to carry on business as a moneylender from 11 September 1959, when the old Moneylenders Ordinance was repealed by the Moneylenders Ordinance, 1959. In my opinion, the mere collection of outstanding debts after the coming into operation of the Moneylenders Ordinance, 1959, on 11 September 1959, did not make him a moneylender within the meaning of the term as defined in the new Ordinance. That being so, the interest which he could recover was limited to 200 per annum under s. 23(5) of the new Ordinance. But, in my opinion, this sub-section did not impose on him any obligation to credit the sum of $100 which was paid to him on 8 November 1959, to principal or to rewrite his account of the loan to show the amount he was entitled to recover under s. 23(5).

Furthermore, on 8 November 1959 the plaintiff was not subject to the obligations of s. 7 of the old Ordinance, as it had been repealed on 11 September 1959. Neither was he subject to the obligations of s. 19 of the new Ordinance which corresponds to s. 7 of the old Ordinance, as in my view he was not a moneylender within the meaning of the term as defined in the new Ordinance. The District Judge had, therefore, no power to dismiss the plaintiff's claim either under s. 7(2) of the old Ordinance or under s. 19(5) of the new Ordinance.

It was for the above reasons that I allowed the plaintiff's appeal, set aside the judgment of the District Court and gave judgment in favour of the plaintiff for the amount claimed and costs of the appeal.

Appeal allowed.