THE ENTERPRISING "INFANT."

Press, Volume XLVI, Issue 7272, 4 February 1889, Page 3

THE ENTERPRISING "INFANT."

At the Resident Magistrate's Court on Saturday, before Mr C. Whltefoord, R.M., Simeon Isaacs, whose affairs—as the representative of his son, E. R. Isaacs, who is the real party concerned—are becoming of considerable notoriety, sought to obtain by interpleader the fruits of a judgment given on Friday in his favor agains 6 H. Lenahan on account of a dishonored note for £23, which bad been sold by X R. Isaacs to bia father, the execution creditor. Mr Bruges appeared for the claimant; Mr Russell for Isaacs. Mr Bruges after stating the facts of the case called J. Heslop, who said that on the previous day he had purchased from Lenahan the stock and fixtures in the tobacconist* shop 229 High street, formerly occupied by R. R. Isaacs, and sold by him to Lenahan, Hβ (Healop) paid Lenahan £20 in cash, a bill at three months for £65, and a bill at four months for a like amount — £150 in all ; be produced the receipt. As soon as the purchase was completed he took possession. Immediately afterwards the baHiffs, acting on behalf of Isaacs, came in, bat he, informing them of tbe change of ownership, ordered them to "clear out." The sale was bona fide. There was no secret agreement that he should hold for Lfinahan. He bad given full value for the property; he knew what Lenahan gave for it, and thought it too much, that in fact uenahan had been "had* , —properly had. He had been in

treaty for the purchase for three weeks. Cross-examined—Mr Goodman wrote oat Che sale note, the cash was paid down, the bills given, and possession handed over at once. Witness knew abooc the bill which Lenahan rave to Isaacs, knew also that Isaacs had offered to take £13 for it. Told Isaacs that it was too much. Did not advise Lenahan to pay it at the rate of 5s in the £. He, witness, was a shoemaker, and had been in business in Christchurch since arriving from Queensland in December. He had no banking account, and' had not given any other bills in Christchnrch. He had no debts, and Lenahan knew that he could meet the bills. He left Queensland because he was doing nothing, notwithstanding which he brought some money to Cnristchurch. He received £23 or £30 per month from mining property. Negotiations had been pending three weeks. He went through the stock several times; he did not make an inventory, but his examination enabled him to make an offer of a lump sum. Lenahan had not lent him 1 money to make the purchase; he did not come forward to help to defeat the judgment in Isaacs v Lenahan. There was no arrangement to return the cash, nor the bills, nor thegoods. H. Leaahan stated that he sold his business, &c, to Hesiop on Friday, immediately after the judgment in Isaacs v Lenahan had been given; it was *bonafide sale. Cross-examined—Knew Heslop since his arrival from Queensland ; knew ne was an honest man, and believed be would meet the bills. Could not produce the bills; would certainly not give an order for the delivery of the bills nor the cash to Mr Russell. He gave the bills in a parcel to Mr Oram, of the White Hart Hotel; Mr Oram put it in his safe, but did not know its contents. The cash he left in the pocket of a coat hanging up in Heslop's shop, but bad since caused Heslop to remove it. The course he had tasen, he did not deny, was taken to defeat the judgment obtained by Isaacs. Never talked over with Heslop this plan of "doing" Isaacs. Did not arrange with him before the case was heard that if judgment went against him, Heslop was to come forward and buy him out. Did not Intend to leave until hie was ready—until his affairs were settled. Mr Russell called no witnesses. AddressIng the Court, he said after what had fallen from Mr Whitefoord in the former I case about young Isaacs, he felt he was at some disadvantage. He noticed also that the papers bad made a good deal out of the supposed "astuteness" of that person. The fact was the selling of the bill to Isaacs, sen., was done on his (Mr .Russell's) advice. Young Isaacs was not " astute," nor was he by any means so black as he was painted. Having thus re-established the character of hia client, be would say a few words on the merits of tYve present case tb.au which.—he was sure his Worship would agree with Wm-uo bigger swindle had ever come before the Court. The claimant's counsel in his opening remarks had not hesi- | teteft. to eAmvt t\vat ttre> transaction had been arranged to defeat the jud«ment, and Lenahan unblushingly said the same thing. He went farther, he said, and hU Worship he thought must agree with him that the sale was wholly bogus— a fraud from beginning to end—and he thought the Court could come to no other decision than to order the goods to be sold, and the judgment in Isaacs v Lenahan to be satisfied out of the proceeds. Mr Bruges cited authorities to show that a eale made under such circumstances was valid unless the purchaser was proved to be a party to the intention of the seller. It did not matter what the seller himself had in his mind. Mr Whitefoord said he could not declare the sale void unless satisfied of collusion. He believed that the sale, so far as Heslop was concerned, was bonafide, and now ordered the bailiff to withdraw. Mr Bruges—We get costs, your Worship? Mr Whitefoord—No. I hardly think it is a case for costs. Mr Russell then applied for a judgment summons to issue at once against Lenahan. j Mr Whitefoord declined to allow one to issue at once, but said one might go on Monday. ________^____