JUDGMENT

Thomson LP:

The plaintiff in this case is a licensed moneylender and the defendant is a person who borrowed money from him.

It is admitted that on 26 March 1959 the plaintiff lent a sum of money to the defendant. The plaintiff said the sum in question was $2,500 and the defendant said it was $2,000. Subsequently certain payments were made by the defendant to the plaintiff. The plaintiff said these amounted to $500, the defendant said they amounted to $2,000.

The case has had an unfortunate history.

The Judge who first tried it found that the amount lent was $2,000. From that finding it followed that the particulars contained in the memorandum and promissory note which evidenced and transaction and which were for $2,500 were not correctly stated and therefore the transaction was unenforceable by reason of s. 16 of the Moneylenders Ordinance. Judgment was accordingly entered for the defendant.

Against that decision the plaintiff appealed and for reasons which were stated at the time the then Court of Appeal allowed the appeal and ordered a new trial.*

At the second trial the Judge found that the amount lent was $2,500 as averred by the plaintiff and that the amount repa