MONEY LENDERS' TRICKS.

Auckland Star, Volume XXIX, Issue 172, 23 July 1898, Page 3 (Supplement)

MONEY LENDERS' TRICKS.

A JUDGE'S STRONG CENSURE,

Judge Emden, at Lambeth County Court,.heard an action which shed some further light upon the methods of money lenders. Miss Emma C. Boers, who carries on the business of a manufacturing confectioner at Gordon road, Peckham, brought an action against the Midland Mercantile Bureau (Limited), of Birmingham, to set aside a deed of assignment executed by her in favour of one John Arthur Palmer, for the benefit of her creditors, on the ground that her signature to the deed was obtained by fraud, v . . • ..............

Mr Watt appeared for the plaintiff, and Mr Houston for the defendants.

Mr Watt, in opening the case, explained that the plaintiff's father, who assists her in the management of her business, had a county court judgment registered against him in the early part of this year. Thereupon there came to him, through the post, a letter from the bureau, in these terms: 'We notice a county court judgment registered against you in this week's 'Gazette,' which, if not satisfactorily explained, will probably occasion you further trouble. If you anticipate pressure from any other creditors kindly communicate with us at once, as we can assist you in several ways, such as by meeting and arranging with your creditors or advancing sufficient cash to meet their claims Mr Boers did not answer this letter, bu the plaintiff seeing it and being in want nf some ready cash to complete a lar o e numb" of orders for customers, wrote he loan. She was asked to sign, and read it-to be a bill of sale, but whicn this way was because an "signment w« more profitable to the money lenders, £id, moreover, gave them absolute control over the whole of her business. One important fact in favour of - the plain tiff's version was that her realisable as sets were worth three times the amount of the .loan. , The plaintiff went, into the box, -anc. bore out her counsel's statement. She had received £5, anfltrw ; more. ~ , For the defence Mr r Houston denied that the plaintiff's i signature was obtained by fraud; He bailed "Frank Carlton, the representative of the bureau, who swore that whence saw plaintiff he explained with regard^o security for the loan that his principals never touched •bills of sale. ■ ; ' ■ , In cross examination witness stated that he did not explain to her that a deed of assignment was analogous to bankruptcy. Mr John Arthur Palmer, managing director of the bureau, cross examined by Mr Watt, said the bureau only lent on deeds of assignment. Judge Emden said in his opinion there had been on the part of the defendants an impudent fraud and misrepresentation practised upon the plaintiff. Clearly she understood that she was obtaining a bill of sale, but the defendants secured her signature to a deed of assignment of her business to the managing director of the bureau—that was to say, she went through quite unconsciously a form of bankruptcy. He had no hesitation in ordering the deed to be set aside, and he further granted an injunc-

tion restraining defendants from proceeding upon the deed in question. Mamtiff would have the costs to which she was entitled. His Honour added that he hoped the revelations in this case would serve as a caution against the circulars sent out by money lenders. So far as his experience went the circular sent out by defendants in this case took quite a new form.