Sutherland J:

Enclosure (20) in this suit file was a contested Summons-in-Chambers whereby plaintiff applied for an order that plaintiff be at liberty to amend the plaint.

I did not find the matter a difficult one to resolve. However, the sums in issue are considerable and I am stating my views in full.

The plaint states that defendant owes plaintiff $824,024.85, balance for money advanced on overdraft account, and $193,863.65 for interest, and also claims ancillary relief. Attached to the plaint are two statements of accounts. The first headed Tang Hong New Account, under date 16 November 1953, bears a debit entry being balance transferred from Tang Hong $345,366.84, Goh Hiang Chew $174,947.71, Lim Siew Hui $258,215.33 and Thein Kwi Kee $85,859.56 less $50,000 as on 7 March 1953. The total of these debit items was entered as $864,389,44. There are a number of credit entries on the account, the total of which is $40,364,59. This credit total will be referred to later. The other account attached to the plaint is in the name of Tang Hong Interest Account and sets out various debits for interest on Tang Hong New Account, the entries running from 27 November 1953 to 28 March 1957 and totalling $193,863,65. This plaint was filed on 28 March 1957 and was a summary suit. Defendant applied for leave to defend. In support, he affirmed that the plaint does not disclose the true position. Prior to 12 September 1952 Chow See King was cashier of the plaintiff at Johore Bahru. Thein Kwi Kee is his wife. Prior to 12 September 1952 there were accounts in the plaintiff bank at Johore Bahru in the name of the defendant, Thein Kwi Kee, Goh Hiang Chew and Lim Slew Hui. Chow See King, Thein Kwi Kee, Goh Hiang Chew and Lim Siew Hui were defendant's friends, and the accounts were allowed overdraft facilities. On 12 September 1952 cheques drawn by defendant on the Kwantung Provincial Bank, Singapore, were paid into defendant's current account, but were not paid.

On 15 September 1952 plaintiff wrote to defendant advising him accordingly. The total amount of the cheques was $342,300 and plaintiff notified defendant that his current account was in debit to the extent of $345,366,84 which was demanded immediately. On the complaint of the plaintiff, a warrant was issued against Chow See King on a criminal charge soon after the 12 or 13 September 1952. Defendant, Thein Kwi Kee, Goh Hiang Chew and Lim Siew Hui were called to the police station and subjected to interrogation on many occasions. Defendant was in a frightened state of mind. Rightly or wrongly, defendant, Thein Kwi Kee, Goh Hiang Chew and Lim Siew Hui might be involved in some criminal charge. Chow See King was charged under s. 420 of the Penal Code for cheating plaintiff of $1,237,700, in Johore Bahru Sessions Court Criminal Case No. 73 of 1952. His case was first mentioned on 20 September 1952 and the charge remained hanging in suspense. Meantime plaintiff was pressing for settlement of the overdrawn four accounts. In expectation that if settlement of the claim of plaintiff could be arrived at, plaintiff would not persist in his efforts to see that the prosecution against Chow See King was continued and that plaintiff would desist from launching any criminal prosecution against defendant, Thein Kwi Kee, Goh Hiang Chew and Lim Siew Hui, defendant agreed to undertake to discharge the liabilities of Thein Kwi Kee except $50,000 and the liabilities of Goh Hiang Chew and Lim Siew Hui.

Plaintiff gave defendant to understand that the criminal case against Chow See King would be withdrawn after defendant had signed an agreement acceptable to plaintiff. As the plaintiff gave defendant to understand that if defendant came to some arrangement acceptable to the bank to wipe out the liabilities arising out of all the four overdrawn accounts, the bank would not think of making any efforts for the continuation of the prosecution against Chow See King or of launching any prosecution against defen