A BOARDINGHOUSE DEAL.

Auckland Star, Volume XXXIX, Issue 146, 19 June 1908, Page 5

A BOARDINGHOUSE DEAL.

! STRONGCX>M?_ENTS B* THE I . ;;.- rJasiipH." - :•/.-;'" Mr; C. C. Kettle was occupied the peater part of yesterday afternoon , hearing evidence in the case in which Mrs. Mary Brennan sought to recover i from Mrs. Stewart the sum of £50, which, ii was claimed, the defendant had : received on her behalf, acting as her agent in the sale of a boardinghouse. Mr E. Mahoney appeared fo rtbe plaintiff, and Mr. W. F. Broo-field for the , defendant. - . ' ~— -. The case for the plaintiff appeared in last evening's issue. Briefly, it was that Mrs. Stewart - introduced a prospective purchaser of the boardinghouse, and the selling price was fixed at £35 for the furniture and goodwill. The business was sold for what the plaintiff understood to have been £35, but in February laet she ascertained that the purchase money paid was £85, and not £35. Notwithstanding plaintiff's appeal to .defendant to hand -her over the difference between the £35 and £85, the money had not been paid over. Plaintiff believed at the time of the sale that the money, for- the purchase was paid by Mr. Wenzcl Scholium. Mrs Vos gave evidence as to the transaction as far as she was concerned in the purchase, and Was complimented by the Bench for the truthful and intelligent manner in. which she had answered the questions. Mrs. Stewart gave evidence that she paid £5 on account of the option, that when the purchase was made she only got her money back again, and had not even received commission on the transaction. j Mr. Kettle: men who gets the £50 j when the whole transaction is finished? Defendant: There was no arrangement "made as to that. Mr. Kettle: Then who has that £50? Defendant: 1 suppose that Mr. Scholium holds it. I have not received any ! money from Mr. Scholium in connection : with the sale. Mr. Brookfield: Not even your commission? Defendant: 1" was paid back my £5, hut no more. •Sir. Kettle: My opinion is that this a bare-faced attempt to swindle' Mrs. Brennan. T shall not give judgment" now, •but will take time to consider the subject. I thinK it will be beneficial to the public to do so. I should also like to hear Mr. Scholium's evidence. Mr. Mahoney: I have been trying for three days to get Mr. Scholium. Mr. Kettle: There is nothing in the evidence to implicate Mr. Scholium in any way. He simply holds £50 belonging to either Mrs. Brennan or Mrs. Stewart. |

Mr. Mahoney: Upon which Mrs. Vos is paying 10 per cent. Is she not entitled to get tnat —•> .

Mr. Kettle: The whole thing is a swindle, in my opinion. It shows the necessity for having these agents regisr tered.

Mr. Mahoney: It certainly is a very clever business.

Mr. Kettle: It is a very cunning, clever transaction, and I am determined to go very fully, into the matter. The case wiH stand over until to-morrow at 10-30 o'clock, and we will hear • what-.Mr. Scholium has to say. Mr. Brookfield: I car. . assure your Worship, that .Schqlljrm_will. J»_pniy. too ready, to give evidence. He "will j return' this evening, and" has been oiit" iof town, on .business, .which is theisple reason why Mr. Mahoney couid hot get in touch with him. I may also state that as far as Mrs. Stewart is concerned, she has not-received a penny for herself out of this transaction.

Mr. Kettle: Then who is to get the £50 that Mr. Scholium now holds for someone? I don't think there j? any evidence that he has beeri'guilty of misconduct or sharp practice, but it -appearsas if the defendant' has attempf/ed tcperpetrate an absolute fraud upon a sick woman.' It is fortunate for Mrs. Brennan that. she had a witness likfe -Mrs. Vos, who comes here and tells the truth, and thus helps mc to.do justice •between these people.

The case was then, adjourned.

On tbe case being resumed this morning, Scholium gave evidence to the effect that he had '•> agreed, through- Mrs. Stewart, to advance £85 to Mrs. Vos, and had paid over sums of £6, £30, and £10, without instructions from: the latter. He had no records of his private transactions beyond his cheque bookMr. Kettle: It is a most extraordinary transaction. Mrs. Vos did not give any directions ror money to be paid over to anyone on her behalf, yet a portion" is paid over.

The defendant, re-called, said she had been some 3} years in business. - She repeated her evidence of the previous day that she had only received £5, and not. £6 from Scholium in connection with this case. The other money was in regard to uhiur transactions.

Mr. Kettle: Is this a sample case?— Oh. no.

! Mr. Kettle: 1 must still say that I | think - this has been a gross fraud on I Mrs. Brennan. It has been very cunj ningly and carefully worked, but it is \ discreditable-, and a contemptible' fraud jon a poor, sick woman. You considered | you were buying the place and yet anj other woman was giving security for £85 jto buy it. You took advantage of plainI tiff to make £50. It was your duty ias her agent to do your best for her, | and tell her that you could get £85. 11 ] wonder that the land agents do not form themselves into an association to keep l out people who do transactions in this ! way. The witness Scholium, re-called, stated that he had no books dealing with his transactions with Mrs. Stewart. His cheques were made to order, and therefore receipts in themselves. Witness and Mrs. Stewart had each half of "what was over" in such transactions. Mr. Kettle further expressed his opinion that Mrs. Brennan had good cause to claim for damages. If the criminal law did not reach such cases, he thought it should. He would suggest that Mrs. Vos be joined with plaintiff. The case was then adjourned pending a settlement.