A BILL OF SALE

Dominion, Volume 21, Issue 189, 12 May 1928, Page 13

A BILL OF SALE

UNFORTUNATE DEAL

CHARGE AGAINST WIDOW

A ease possessing points of interest to dealers iu property was heard in the Supreme Court yesterday before Mr. Justice Smith. Nona Watts was charged that, with intent to defraud, she obtained from I’ercfyal Luke Bioxham the sum of £250 by a false pretence, by falsely representing that certain furniture was free of all encumbrances, whereas she had given a registered instrument by way of security over the furniture. Accused was further charged with attempting to defraud Beresford Harry Huey Edkins by the sale and delivery of the chattels, thus impairing the grantee's security. over them. Mr. T. I’. Clery appeared for accused, who pleaded not guilty. Mr. P. S. K. Macassey, outlining the case for the Crown, said that on May 29, 1926, Mrs. Watts bought from Captain Edkins an eight-roomed house in Hobson Street for- £3300. She paid £250, and gave a first mortgage of £2OOO for three years at 64 per cent., and a second mortgage of £llOO for three years at 7 per cent. Captain Edkins insisted upon a chattels security in the form of a bill of sale over the furniture, which was to be brought into the house, not exceeding £350, as collateral security with tile second mortgage. A special clause to this effect was inserted in the sale agreement, which had been signed by Mrs. Watts, who also initialled the clause. On October 1, 1926, a bill of sale containing a list of all the furniture was executed in favour of Captain Edkins, and signed by Mrs. Watts. This instrument was registered in the Supreme Court on October 14, 1926. On the day before it was registered, and thirteen days after she had signed the bill of sale, Mrs. Watts went to a firm of land agents, Large and Co., and instructed them to offer the furniture and the lease of th<l house for sale. On November 25 a representative of Large and Co. introduced Mr. Bloxham to Mrs. Watts, who was expressly asked by both men whether there was any encumbrance on the furniture. She replied there was none. Bloxham then agreed to lease the house and purchase the furniture. . • Evidence was given by Percival Luke Bloxham, who said he agreed to lease the house for three years at £4 15s. a week, and to buy the furniture. The conditions in the agreement were explained to Mrs. Watts and himself before they signed it. He was assured that the furniture was free from encumbrances. He paid the balance of the purchase money in December, 1926. In October, 1927, witness tried to sell the lease and the furniture, and he then learned for the first time that there was a bill of sale for £250 over the latter. Captain Edkins later put a bailiff into the house, and sold the furniture. Accused had paid witness nothing. Witness said he had lost about £4OO over the deal. ... Evidence given by Frederick William Edward Deverell, Richard Alfred Large and Rupert Cecil Woods regarding the transactions of the purchase by Mrs. Watts and her sale to Bloxham, closed the case for the Crown. Accused Pleads Ignorance.

Accused, who stated that she was at present licensee of the Empire Hotel at Featherston, then gave evidence. She said she knew nothing about any bill of sale when she signed the documents relating to the purchase of the house.

She did uot read them through, as she trusted to her solicitor, Mr. Kgley. It she had been asked by Woods or Bloxham whether there was any encumbrance on the furniture she would have told them it was clear. The first sue knew about the bill of sale was some four or live months after the sale to Bloxham. She realised she had a liability to Bloxham, but she had lost £3OO herself. . , To Mr. Macassey: She received the rent regularly from Bloxham till October, 1927, and paid the interest up to that time. She did not remember ltdkins insisting upon getting the chattels security nor having initialled the clause in the purchase agreement. She might have given the list of the furniture, but she did not remember having done so. She did not know she had signed a bill of sale over the furniture. She was positive she bad not been informed to that effect by Egley or the land agents. When she was told by Egley four or five months after the sale to Bloxham that there was a bill of sale he told her “to let it go on.” She did not tell Bloxham about it. Bertram Egley, solicitor, said the bill of sale was signed by accused, in Ins presence* at a much later date than the mortgage. It was his practice to explain such documents to his clients, but he could not remember that he did so in this case. He had entirely forgotten the bill of sale when the sale to Bloxham was made. If he had remembered it lie would have told Mrs. Watts. Some months later he told her she should not have sold the furniture. When signing the document Mrs. Watts would know it was a bill of sale, and he would have told her. , After Egley had replied to several questions from the Bench, His Honour remarked that whether it was negligence on the part of witness, or another matter. was not before the Court. Addressing the jury, Mr. Clery said the Crown could not offer any positive evidence of false pretence with intent to defraud, but they were asked, to infer that there had been. The evidence did not justify any such inference. It was not likely that accused would have gone to a lawyer if she had had any intent to defraud. Either her act was quite innocent or there was conspiracy between her and the lawyer to defraud. Mr. Macassey said the evidence showed that accused must have known about the bill of sale. Any honest person would have told Bloxham , and made restitution. Was it honest or straight to say nothing to the man? His Honour said the issue was whether accused knew that her statement was false. There was no previous charge against her honesty, and she appeared to have acted on her solicitor’s advice.

The jury retired at 5.22 p.m. and returned at 8.29 with the verdict of not guilty on both charges. The judge thanked the jury for their services and discharged them from further attendance.