RAE V. GRFENWAY.

Auckland Star, Volume XXII, Issue 140, 15 June 1891, Page 3

RAE V. GRFENWAY.

I A FOOL AND HIS MONEY.

I THE CAGE CONCLUDING.

Tiik case of Raa v. Greenway, in which the dofcnuaKfc,. Alfred Robert Greenway, is sued fcr £448 10s 6:1 by James Rae, money-lender, on certain promissory notes given for cash lent and for jewellery sold, j waa aguin called at tho Supreme Court this morning, before His Honor Mr Justice Conolly and a special jury of four. Tho evidence in the case waa concluded on Saturday, and this morning tho jury was addressed by counsel. Mr Thro. Cooper, for the defence, opened by stating the nature of the claim. "lie said thab for tho plaintiff it waa claimed that bhismoney had been lent to a man iv tho possession of ample means ab a high rale of interest, and yet ifc rata claimed that the wan was in full possession of Ids faculties. No one could express too strongly his disapprobation of the conduct of bhe defendant Greenway. Yotthero was some excuse for him because of tho way in which hurpios had preyed on him and had taken advantage of his weakness. Ho would claim en tho evidence thab tho •.-iter incompetency of the defendant to enter into cny contract was proved, Tho evidence as to Grconway's state bolero the 24th November was strong. Grconni'.y had been indulging in ii succession of sprees during IC9O. lie was only recovering from, his second bier spree when ho entered on hi:; third. Dr. Wine's evidence went to chow that for severe.! ('ays after November lOtli Greenway was being attended for an attack of delirium tremens. Nov?, that- evidence was very important as .-■' lowing tho t?tat-o in which Greenway must havoboen, and it alsowent to discredit onoof the witnesses for the plaintiff, Mr Webster, v.*no lixcd tee very date of this attack as that on which ho was employed by Greenway to do certain work. That very fact was suliicient to destroy tho value of Webster's evidence. A man suffering, according to the Ktatomont of one of the few reputable witnesses, from a severe attack of tho horrors, could not woii engago a man to do work. Then Hifcchensi' evidence was thab from the time of Dr. Wine's visit, even alter an attack of the honors, Greenway was never perfectly sober. He could nob have known what he was doing on tho 24th November when he borrowed money at _40 per cent, while he had plenty ot money ab the bank. Ho waa at the time weak and suffering, and rallying from tho attack of tho horrors, liis conduct was nor, that of a sane man. Evidence aboub these transactions was such that one side must be believed to the confusion of bho other side. Either Rao's version or Bowden's version of the transactions must be believed. It was unreasonable and improbable that Greonway should go and borrow money to pay pressing accounts when he had money in the bank. It was reasonable and probable thab ho should come from a brothel, where ho had been drinking, and, without knowing what ho waa doing, that he should borrow money at a ruinous rave of interest. There was an incentive to Mr Rao to do business with a drunken man, because of tho reward ho waa likely to get. If the interest had been small, there would have been nothing to complain of, but looking ab tho high rate of interest, it mast bo thought that Rao simply took the ri3k of doing business with a drunken man and charged for the risk. Then the evidence as to the jewellery transactions was sufficient to show that if ever a man deserved to stand in tho dock for fraud, it was Mr Rae. Bowden'a evidence went to chow that Greenway'*? life was spent in a round of visits to brothcl-i, Kae's shop, Hitchons' house, and the Victoria and other hotels. lis was always drunk, i>o matter in whose company he was. Mr Rao protested too much that Greenway was sober. Yet from ono circumstance on tlue 27th November he would ask the jury to discredit the evidence of Rae, Hitchons, and Mis Rae. That circumstance was that in the early morning of that day Greenway staggered. up to Dr. Walker's place in _ drunken dirty condition. Dr. Walker prescribed for him, and yob between 11 and 12 o'clock he again saw Greenway in it worse condition than ho war. in before. Yet; Rao said that Greenway was perfectly sober when he borrowed the money. Either Rao or Dr. Walker must be disbelieved about thab occasion, and if Rao's evidence was shown to be false in regard to thab occasion, ib must bo disbelieved, in regard to other occasions. Bub ib was not simply Riie'a evidence against Bowden's. Dr. Waikcr like Dr. Wino was a perfectly independent and disinterested witness. lie had nob even a claim againsb Greenway. Ho submitted that the evidence showed thab at the very beginning of these transactions Greanv/ay was in a condition of drunkenness, and Rao was tempted to tako'advantage of his condition and lent iiiui tho money at an enormous rate of interest. If Greenway was drunk on tho 27th, then was ib not natural to suppose that ho was drunk also on the 29th ? There was nothing but general evidonco to show Grcenway's condition on tho 2Sth, bub from the circumstances it was natural to suppose that be was drunk. It ho was aobor, why should ho pay £8 for the loan of £30 from Mr Rao? There was tho evidence of Mrs McDonald and Mrs Pago in regard to tho 29th November. Whatever might be said of Mrs McDonald's conduct, it was no worse than that of Mr Rae. She sold new jewellery to Greenway; she did nob sell a £15 ring for £25. Bhe did not come liko Rae or John Abbott or ethers and say that she never did business with Greonway when he was drunk. Sho did not mako statements that could not possibly be believed. She frankly admitted thab t>ho did business with Greenway when ho was drunk. Now, Mrs Page and Mrs McDonald said that he was quite drunk at 9 o'clock in the evening of the 29th November. They had to support him on the way to Rae'fi shop, and when he came oub he gave Mrs Pago £10 for Nelly Bremner. Mrs McDonald's evidence was entitx-ly against her,own interests, seeing that she had a claim againsb Greenway, and was, theioforo, the more worthy of credit. There was no reason for Mrs Pago to commit wilful and corrupt perjury, and yet hor evidence as to tho 29th November was absolutely contradictory of thab given by Rao. She was a disinterested party, Mr Rao was nob. Mr Kohn. had stated that Greenway waa sober on bhe 29th, bub ho only spoke of tho morning. Resides, Mr Kohn's evidence must; have been tinctured by the fact that he had a claim against Greenway. Ho had no intention of accusing Sir Kohn of giving fake evidonco, Mr Kohn was too well known for that; but it waa nob likely ho would say that Greenway was drunk when ho sold tho diamond ring to him. Now, looking at the fact that Greenway on December 2nd borrowed £2, and gave a p. n. for £2 10s, ifc would almost be sufficient to ask the jury en thab point alone to say that the man could have been in no condition to do business. Bowden was with him when he borrowed that money, and Hitchons said that whenever Bowden was with him he was sure to be drunk. Greeny ay never but once borrowed money except when Hitchons or Bowden was with him. Ifc was clear that he was simply a machine in tho hands of Bowden and Kitchens. A vory important question in regard to these transactions was whether or no fraud was practised. A man in bis sober senses would cot be easily entrapped, but when ho was drunk he was under the influence of those who had him in hand.- A ring, the highest value of which was assessed

|at £7, was billed at £25. The fact 'was that Greenway waa robbed. Rae j was short-sighted, and he was nob a jeweller, but he was a pawnbroker, and ihe knew very well the vakio of bhe goods in his shop. A charge of £15 was made for the fclireo-sfcone locket, which was said to be worth £2 or £1 10s. Yet it had a brass front, a pewter back and a leaden inside. There could be no contract with a drunken raan charge:! such pricesasthat. The charge for the so-called ~" emerald " lockob was £5 ami yeb Ayres Eaid it was worth lO.t. Tor the gold albert chain worth £17 10s new the charge was £25. For fche single stone diamo-id ring the charge was two or throe times tho value. A sober man would not have gone and bought secondhand and worthless jewellery from Rae. '.Che whole circumstances went fco show thab the man musb have been drunk and incapable. A man who sold a lockot worth 10s for £5 was quite capable of taking a p.n. tor £7 10s, when he gave only £2 for it, as ho did on tho sth December. Mr Cooper submitted fco tho jury bho 1.0. U. signed on sth December, and contended thafc a spider could have made a better signature, and thab Greonway must have been drank. Tho signatures on fche 20th December too wero uneven and such as would be made by a drunken man. The ovideneo in regard to Green way'a going to sleep in the chair and being woke up by the smelling bottle on tho 20th December was also very probable. It would take a cleverer man than Bowden to invent thafc story. Tho evidence in regard to tho attempts fco get Greonway 'a signature fco a ehequo on the 20sh was also referred to. Bowden's evidence in regard fco. tho 23rtl and 24fch December was bhab Greenway was drunk, and that evidence was supported by fcho evidence of Mary Cassidy. Gertie Goodman's ovideneo too showed that about that time ho was in a drunken condition. Her evidence as to tho visit to Rie's was sufficient to show that. Greenway might nob have been dead drunk certainly, bub ho was too drunk to know what ho was doing. If Rae would deal with a drunken man en thafc occasion, ho would do tho same on other occasions. Rao evidently cared for nothing so long as ho gob the signature, treating - (nab the money would be paid sooner than risk an exposure. Then in regard to the attempt to get Greenway fco sign en tho 51st December at Hitchons' house, why was nob Mrs Hitchons called to contradict fcho evidence of Mrs Page and Mrs McDonald ? Ilitchena certainly had contradicted it, but his contradiction was unsupported. Regarding fche 2nd January there was the speeilie statement of Bowden, supported by the ovidence of Mrs . McDonald, that Greenway borrowed money from Rae. Miss Stanley had said, certainly, thab Greenway did not leave her house that day. But he would ask tho jury , to believe Bowden and Mrs McDonald when they said that Greenway was on that occasion drunk. Then there was Miss Stanley's evidence that ho was drunk from i tha fcimo bo entered her place till ho left it. Tho prices charged for fcho jewellery on the sth January wero suflicienb ovideneo thab fraud was practised. A so-called topaz ring was charged ab t'ls, and its value was only £4 10s. A diamond ring worfch £4 10s or £5 was charged ab £15. The bracelets wero about tho only articles not; overcharged: For fche nautilus shell set £10 was charged, while tho valuo was only aboufc £5. The .statements of Bowden and Mrs Mc Donald in regard to tho wretched and drunken condition of Greenway on the Gfh of January musb be believed. Jlis conduct ab the bank was Eensele6s. In fact, ho was a lunatic. Tho bank teller's evidence viaa not to bo regarded, for all tho attention he had to give way fco see fchab fcho signature was right and thab Greenway was there to get tho money. The plaintiff would probably say thabon the 6fch Greenway was sober, and by his payments fco Rae on account, practically ratilied the previous transactions. Tho matter of tho cheque must have been arranged beforehand. Rae was probably getting frightened thafc he would not got his money, ".'hero could be no reason lor behoving thab Miss Stanley perjured herself when she said that Raewas inherplaceon the 6th. Tho man who was not too squeamish to tako a man to a hotel fco get his signature wouidnot bo too squeamish to go t-> a brothel alter him. Then there was bho evidence of Hewson in rogard to fcho transactions ab tho bank, and ib was only contradicted by tho bank clerk, who had evidently not been paying much attention. Tho wholo of the ovideneo wont to show thafc the man was very drunk. Wus ib tbe act of asobormantogivo Hewson the sum of £10, handing out tho sovereigns loosely ? When a man could on the 6th January got his cheque cashed at tho bank for £550, why should ho boiTow £13 ou tho same day if ho were sober ? (Left sitting.)