MR TUCK IN THE BOX.

Press, Volume LXII, Issue 12571, 14 August 1906, Page 8

MR TUCK IN THE BOX.

He then called Henry Tuck, provision dealer. Witness said he bad known both accused a number of years. Bruges had boon his solicitor since 1898, if not before. In March, 1901, he paid into Bruges's office £260. Goodman asked him if he had any money to advance on loan, and witness said he had if the security was good. Goodman said he had a jjood security which would show. Witness went to tho property with Mr Goodman. It was in Boundary road, and Goodman said it was Mr Lawrences. Witness was satisfied with the security and gave a cheque to Goodman for £260 for tho purpose of being advanced to Lawrence. Witness, received interest on the sum for a considerable time. Ho had also other investments upon which interest was paid. He had received the statements (put in) showing the payment of interest; they were in Goodman's handwriting, and one included £10 on account of Lawrence. He made several applications for the deeds of the security; on one occasion Goodman brought out a parcel from his strong room, labelled with witness's name. Goodman said those were tho deeds, but they had better be left in the strong room; witness had several documents at the,office, but Goodman said he could not find the particular deeds asked for, and asked for a couplo of days to search. That was last year, and before Bruges's bankruptcy. Witness saw Bruges about the deeds long before the bankruptcy; Bruges called in Goodman, but the latter could not produce tlie deeds. t Bruges asked Goodman where tho money was gone. Goodman replied "You know as well as I do," and ran out of tho room. Witness had never ha<s any security for tho £260, and had never had any portion of the money. When they visited tho property they did not go through tho house, Goodman stating tliat Mrs Lawrence was diffident about the matter. On April ls>t, 1903, witness was asked if he had £200 to lend to x\lr C. H. Mason on good security. Goodman took him to Mr Mason's house at Linwood. Witness saw tho property, and was satisfied to lend tho money on tbat security. The money was advanced for the express purpeso of being lent to Mason; tho money was paid either into the office or to Goodman. Witness received interest on the £200; the two memos, in Goodman's writing .-hewed tho payments of interest. Tho cheques wero usually signed Bruges, per Goodman. • During the whole timo witness received about two cheques signed by Bruges personally. Witness asked "for the * Mason deeds many times, but never got them or his money. He asked both accused repeatedly for the deeds. In February, 1904, witness said ho handed Goodman £60, and received a receipt from Goodman. The money was to lie lent on 10 per cent, interest. £14 principal and interest was paid on that account. He had received nothing beyond that. In October, 1901, Bruges's office had £400 to witness's credit, it having been paid off by Mrs Homiblow. Ho then received a letter (produced), stating that a Mrs Campbell desired to borrow £400' on security. It was signed Bruges, per Goodman. Mr Bushell, a clerk employed in Bnigex's office, took him to view the property. Witness was satisfied, and agreed that the money should be h'nt. He had never received any security, interest, or principal since. In March, 189S, he paid £450. Goodman introduced him to land belonging to Fletcher, Humphreys and Company and witness lent tho money for the express purpo.-eo that it t-hould be lent on that security. He had not received the security deeds, and had never seen the money. Alto-ether he had paid £2170 to the office, and liad received no security in return. Goodman was the managing clerk. Cross-examined by Mr Russell, witness said that when Bruges and Thouuis were in partnership he did his business through Goodman. Bruges and Thomias diSolvod 22 yeans ago. He liad not had anything to do with Bruges in regard to his money-lending trantae-