CLAIM FAILS.

Auckland Star, Volume LXIX, Issue 111, 13 May 1938, Page 9

CLAIM FAILS.

MATRON NONSUITED.

THEFT BY MANAGER. INSURANCE SOCIETY SUED. (From Our Correspondent.) PALMERSTON N., Thursday. There was an unusual basis to a claim which was the subject of litigation in the Supreme Court to-day. The plaintiff was Miss Grace Berry, matron of the Pabiatua Hospital, who sued the Australian Mutual Provident Insurance .Society for £300. In outlining the plaintiff's case, Mr. McGregor said that Miss Berry was suing the society for £300 and interest on that sum because she claimed that «he had lent it to the defendants for investment. In May, 1935, there came due in her favour an endowment policy which had been in force for 1-4 years,. The district manager for the company at that time was Godfrey HaJse and when the policy matured she was asked to go to Palmerston Xorth to see him. Halse suggested at the interview that the society should invest the money for her at 7 per cent interest.

Halse aleo suggested that she should take out another endowment policy for a period of five years. In all £310 was due to her, so she applied the odd £16 toward the first premium of a new endowment policy, which amounted to £20 odd. She also agreed to leave £300 with the society as suggested by Halse. being told that if unable at any time to pay the premium on the new policy the interest on the £300 could be used for that purpose. Documents Signed. Continuing, counsel said Hake asked plaintiff to sign documents, anl she endorsed the cheque for £316. That was the only time she handled it. She left the office and later forwarded the balance of the premium due on the new policy. From then on until early in August, 1937, she had no further dealings with the society, except that she paid the annual premiums on the new policy from her earnings, and had no need to draw on the interest on the £300 left with the society.

Subsequently plaintiff wae informed that Halse had stolen her money, along with other moneys. It was then that she informed the society she must hold it responsible, as she had dealt with Halse as manager. She did not know him personally.

Mr. McGregor then referred to the defence raised by the society, which fell under two headings—that at no time had they received £300 from the plaintiff, nor any other sum, and that Halse, as manager of the company in Palmerston North, had no authority from the society to receive any moneys from her. The question to be decided. therefore, was whether Halse received the money acting, or professing to act, "n behalf of the society. Plaintiff's Belief. Plaintiff said she got no receipt when she handed Halse the cheque for £316, but hardly expected one. However, she had signed four documents placed before her by Halse r,-ithout reading them. One was a receipt acknowledging having received £310 from the society.

Counsel: Having given the society a receipt, did you not expect one from tliem when you handed it back?

Witness: I was not sure of the internal workings of the society.

Didn't HaJse give you his own personal receipt?—He did not. Plaintiff denied that Halse had said he was. able to arrange loans which the society could not advance owing to the amounts being too small. There was no discussion as to the nature of the investment Halse had in mind. She thought the society would use the £300 just as it used premiums paid in by policy-holders as a sort of bank. This was the only evidence produced for the plaintiff. Mr. H. J. V. James, for the defendant society, submitted argument for a nonsuit, which his Honor allowed. Briefly the decision was if there was any action there was a claim for a breach of trust, which must be brougiit before a judge alone and not a jury.