FURNITURE AND A LOAN.

Evening Post, Volume LXXX, Issue 22, 26 July 1910, Page 8

FURNITURE AND A LOAN.

ALLEGATIONS OF FRAUD. In the Magistrate's Court to-day, before Mr. W. E. Haselden, S.M., the South Pacific Mortgage and Deposit Company, Ltd., of Wellington, proceeded against Leonard Cuthbert Cain, of Courtenay-place, manufacturer, and Catherine Cain, his wife, to recover the sum of £104 15s 3d. Plaintiffs set forth iv their statement of claim that the amount was due upou a certain bond, dated the 20th August, 1909, entered into by the defendants, whereby they became bound to the plaintiffs in the sum of £250, conditioned for the payment of £175 by certain instalments on certain days now past. The amount claimed was further alleged to be principal and interest, due under instrument, by way of security registered at the Wellington Supreme Court, made between Rose Thomas on the one part and plaintiff on the other. Mr. T. Young appeared for the plaintiff company, and Mr. C. R. Dix for defendant. Counsel for plaintiff said that plaintiff was a registered moneylender. On the 20th August, 1909, a Mrs. Rose Thomas, board inghouse-keeper, applied for a. loan, in order to purchase the furniture in the house she had recently acquired. The company sent its manager to value the furniture, and said it would lend the money provided the applicant got guarantors for the amount. She accordingly arranged with the two defendants to guarantee the loan (£145). Subsequently, when the loan was not redeemed by Mrs. Thomas, defendants asked the company to exercise their rights under the bill of sale. The furniture was sold, and realised about £47, and the balance of the loan was now being sued for. The guarantors claimed that the furniture was overvalued, and alleged fraud, but even if the allegation of over-valuation were true, said counsel, it would not affect the position. Evidence was given by Henry Bird, clerk in the office of the South Pacific Mortgage Company, to the effect that Rose Thomas signed the instrument, at the company's office in Manners-street. An actual cash advance of £146 was made, and interest was calculated at the Tate of 20 per cent.; and a fee of £1 le was charged by the company. Mrs. Cain later called at the office and said that Mrs. Thomas was not able to ma-ke matters pay ; she advised' that the company should take possession, and the guarantors would make up the deficiency arising out of the sale. Subsequently, the directors agreed to square the whole account if £95 were paid. The company wrote to defendants to this effect, but the amount had not been paid. To Mr. Dix : Mrs. Cain had come to •the office at various times and said, the value placed on the furniture (£200) by Mr. Thornton, the company's valuer, wa* never there. That, was after the sate of the goods. Counsel proceeded to crossexamine witness about alleged "faking" of the company's books and a suspension of witness for three days, but opposing counsel objected, and his Worship asked counsel what he alleged had been done? Mr. Dix : We want to show that whereas Thornton upon a number of occasions said to various persons that the value of the furniture was a good £200, his own valuation, as shown by ait entry made by him in one of the company's books, was simply £100, and my clients were inducedto enter into the transaction on the faith that the furniture would realise £200. Later, witness was further cross-ex-amined concerning his antecedents, and his Worship ruled that the character of the witness had nothing to do with the case. Further evidence was called to show that defendants entered into the bond on the express understanding that the furniture was worth £200, and they had trusted to Thornton's valuation entirely. Had they known that the actual valuo was only £103, they would not have been prepared to stand security for Mrs. Thomas. When asked to sign the bond, defendants, it was said, had been told "You run no risk in signing this, which is simply required by the company, and whatever the sale, it will more than suffice to pay the security." After hearing legal argument, his Worship gave judgment for the plaintiff for the amount claimed, with costs £7 2s. Counsel for defendant intimated that an appeal would be probable.