SUIT FOR £2000.

Press, Volume LXIV, Issue 19480, 29 November 1928, Page 6

SUIT FOR £2OOO.

CONSPIRACY ALLEGED. JUDGMENT IS RESERVED. After hearing the addresses of counsel in tho claim by the Dominion Motors, Ltd., for £2OOO against John Fleming, of Cheviot, sheep-farmer, and his wife, Sarah Jane Fleming, in the Supreme Court yesterday, his Honour Mr Justice Adams reserved judgment. The case involved a charge of conspiracy to defraud the company in respect of a guarantee given by way of security for a debt owing by a motor deuler," who had since became bankrupt. Tho plaintiff company was represented by Sir John Findlay, with him Mr A. S. Nicholls, Mr J. H. Uphain appearing for John Fleming and Mr K. J. I.oughnau for Sarah Jane Ileming. The proceedings arose out of the affairs of George Wilcox, of Ashburton, ■,motor dealer, who was sentenced for obtaining credit while he was an undischarged "bankrupt, and who had large transactions with the Dominion Motors. It was alleged by the Dominion Motors that Wilcox, while indebted to the firm for £4OOO, agreed to obtain, against the debt, a guarantee by Flemiii« his father-in-law, for £2OOO. The min'rantee was" signed by Mrs Fleming. It was alleged that Wilcox represented that the signature was Fleming's. Ihe Dominion Motors claimed the sum of £2OOO, awl alleged that Wilcox and Mrs Fleming conspired to defraud the firm. Mrs Fleming denied conspiracy. She said that she did not understand the guarantee when she signed it, and did not think that her signature would be taken for her husband's. She signed tho guarantee because she thought that her name on it would help her daughter, Mrs Wilcox. Sir John Findlay said that they could onlv succeed against John Fleming if his Honour found rigainst Mrs Fleming. Mr Loughnan said that if he could succeed in dispelling the allegations of conspiracy then the case against Fleming would disappear. He submitted that no conspiracy had been established. The charge had been made as black as possible, and it was the duty of the person propounding it to establish it right up to the hilt. That had nob been done. The only evidence of conspiracy was that subtly eked out of tho evidence. It was on three points —the opening of the letters by Mrs Fleming when they were addressed to a male, the silence of the wife after signing the guarantees up to May, when ner husband became aware of it, and her action in returning the document, after signing it, not to Mr Nicholls, but to Wilcox. _ The claim was in the nature of a claim for damages. Mrs Fleming had been charged with fraud of the deepest dye, and she had been completely vindicated. She gave her evidence with perfect frankness and accounted quite, satisfactorily for all that she did. No jury wou d convict her of anything that would cast anv aspersion on her character. His Honour: I was very much impressed by her evidence. Sir John Findlay said that a large amount of Mrs Fleming's simplicity of manner was assumed for the purpose of avoiding responsibility. She claimed that for many years she had been in tho habit of opening her husband's letters in Wb absence and 1 determining whether she could answer them herself or send them on to her husband. The letter was addressed, "S. J. Fleming, Esq.," and opened, "Dear Sir. She signed them knowing that the documents were intended for her httsband. Mr Nicholls* letters said: "Send it back to me." She did not do that, but sent it down to Ashburton. The circumstances showed clearly that Mrs Fleming was not the innocent and inexperienced person she claimed to be. She knew that she was signing a guarantee. The right thing to do was to let Mr Nicholls know that she, not her husband, signed the guarantee. Thereafter she remained in suspicious secrecy. She did not tell her husband anything, and that was evidence of a guilty mind. She induced the company to believe that they were her husband's documents and not her's. His Honour said that there was no evidence that she had ever conspired in the sense that she agreed with Wilcox that her signature should be represented as her husband's signature. He did not find* after hearing counsel, that the impression that he had formed in the course of Mrs Fleming s evidence in the earlier part of the case had been removed from his mind, It was an important case, and he would examine the evidence very carefully. The questions of fact were simple enough, but the question of what inference was to be drawn from the portions of the evidence that had been roferr*d to might be a little more difficult than appeared. He would reserve his judgment.