"HORRIBLE FRAUD."

Sun (Christchurch), Volume I, Issue 134, 13 July 1914, Page 5

"HORRIBLE FRAUD."

BILLS FOR £6OOO. The English Court of Appeal recently allowed the appeal of Miss Frances Bennett Dobbs from the judgment of Mr' Justice Horridge in an aetion brought against her by the executors of the late Mr Charles Owles, a money-lander, for £GOOO.

*The claim was in respect of her acceptances of two bills of exchange for that 'amount. The bills had been drawn by Lady Ida Sitwell, and Miss Dobbs signed them as surety; they were discounted by,Mr Owles for £4500. None of the £6OOO was repaid. Judgment by default had been given against Lady Ida Sitwell, and Miss Dobbs disputed her liability under circumstances which are fully explained in the judgment. The Lord Chief Justice, giving judgment, said it appeared that Lady Ida Sitwell knew nothing whatever of Miss Dobbs, and as far as he was aware Miss Dobbs knew nothing whatever of Lady Ida Sitwell. Lady Ida Sitwell, who, according to the evidence, was a lady of position, being the wife of Sir George Sitwell, was minded to borrow money in order to pay her debts. She had recourse to aMr Field, whose business it was to' take business to money-lenders. Mr Field knew Mr Herbert, who described himself as a private enquiry agent, and Mr Herbert knew Miss Dobbs. FALSE LETTER.

The point appeared to have been that it was necessary to get some other name than Lady Ida Sitwell upon the bill. Therefore, a letter was written by Lady Ida Sitwell to Mr Herbert; it was said that Mr Field got her to write it. That letter contained falsehoods written with the express object of misleading persons, so that those persons might act in the belief that the"statements in it were true. The letter said: —

'' You who have known me for so long and who know my people know that Miss Dobbs will be running no kind of risk in any way, and of course I will gladly give her a letter relieving her <if all responsibilty in the matter.'' • By producing this letter Mr Herbert induced Miss Dobbs t'o sign her name upon the two bills as acceptor. Mr Justice Horridge, who had all she facts before him, described this transaction as ''a horrible fraud" and upon the facts as proved before .him it was clear that he was justified in coming to that conclusion. The learned judge, therefore, arrived at this conclusion—that tffe acceptances were obtained fiom Miss Dobbs by fraud, and that the acceptances were negotiated in fraud of Miss Dobbs. ' There was no doubt Mr Owles took them for valuable consideration. There was also no doubt upon the facts that

Mr Owles acted in good faith in ffc* Va matter. m MEANING OF THE LETTEB& J Another defence raised was -that Mb* ~m Dobbs, when she signed these twtt~sr : _ _||B cep'tances for £3OOO each, thought stes "~-- was really merely signing one aeeeji*~ --Jj ance for £3OOO and that the other dees- M ment was not intended to be used as a f ! Jf bill of exchange; that, in fact, it vnu> -f| r.ot a bill of exchange but something j? else —what else, he (the Lord CJttef Justice) had not quite been able to din ' J cover. He saw no reason to dissent i J from Mr Justice Horridge's judgment M on this point. , 3| The third point urged was that wh*» ;-a tLe bills became due an arrangea»«JH~ Jl was made with the principal, Lady I4s> ;M Sitwell, by which she was to have r. ja month's extension of time withomt thr # Jl assent of the surety, Miss Bob&es, "* M There were two letters of July 15, «*«".^- —— "~j| from Lady Ida Sitwell and from Mr Herbert, both to Mr Owles. ,- ( ?| The only possible meaning of those || letters, observed the Lord Chief Justice* ;'3 was that Lady Ida Sitwell was the prut ill cipal and that Miss Dobbs was only k J surety. It followed in his judgment - M that Miss Dobbs, as surety, was a©- iJj liable upon the bills, and that.she was -M excused from liability because the ex- :| tension of time 1 given by Mr Owles was without her consent. Therefore■■'**«? if judgment entered in the court 'J would be reversed and judgment entered - for Miss Dobbs.