BLACKMAIL ALLEGED

Evening Post, Volume CXVII, Issue 76, 31 March 1934, Page 12

BLACKMAIL ALLEGED

TEUST ACCOUNT CASE

SOLICITOR M.P. EXONERATED

(By Telegraph—Press Association.) .. AUCKLAND, March 30. Allegations of blackmail and frequent references to a sum of £SOO in silver which was confiscated by the Crown last year were made in the Magistrate's Court yesterday durjrig tho hearing of a case in which William Toomey, described' as a masseur, proceeded against Frederick. William Schramm, solicitor (and M.P.), for £S8 15s, being the alleged 'balance of £470 paid into Schramm's trust account by Toomey. The defendant was i-ciiroscnted by Mr. Dickson' and the plaintiff by Mr. Haigh. In outlining the case, Mr. Haigh said that the circumstances in which the money was paid over to Schramm in July, 1933, were that in the previous month Toomey had had a large sum in silver stolen from him. He had instructed Sehramm to act for him, and subsequently £.470 had been handed by Toomey to Schrainra. Later Toomey received various sums of money from this account, and finally, on December 18, Schramm stated that he would settle with Toomey at that time and would give Toomey £38 ss; retaining the balance of 75 guineasl as costs. Toomey protested at this amount, and asked for a bill of costs. He received a cheque, and on returning home found there was a balance of £88 15s. The following day he again demanded a bill of costs, and Schramm said lie would give one. Since that time Toomey hail tried to obtain the balance of the money, and on February ID had consulted Mr. Haigh himself; Mr. Haigh said he had written to Schramm, but had received, no reply to his first letter, and on March 1 he had again written stating that unless a bill of costs was issued a summons would bo issued. Five days later Schramm wrote back expressing surprise at the threat? of a summons, and asked whether Toomey repudiated the settlement made in Schramm's office when he was given a cheque for £38 ss. THREATS OVER TELEPHONE. : Referring to tho receipt, Toomey said that when he signed it the words "received £38 ss".were .on. it but. if the words "in settlement" were there, he did not remember them. However, he could not .'swear that they were not there. Witness denied that he agreed to any settlement at that interview, and said he would" not agree to anything uutil he got a bill of costs. " * Cross-examined, Toomey admitted that he owed Schramm some costs, but ho had had no bill., He considered 25 guineas would be .a fair fee. Mr. Dickson: This silver stolen was going to be exported to Australia. ■ Witness: It was not. Mr. ; Dickson remarked that the money was that in respect to which a man named Hyman was at present serving sentence. . , Mi-. Dickson: Did you say that if you were successful in getting back the money seized by the Crown you would give the defendant £200? Witness: I did not. "We are suggesting that this is nothing short of blackmailing," said Mr. Diekson in opening his address. '' Toomey has been trying to extort money from my client through threats of publicity.- The whole thing is an attempt to impose on tho Court, and is typical of an Australian crook." In evidence, the defendant Sehramm described how he had acted for Toomey, and said that all particulars showii in the statement were correct, and actually many 'instances of professional services were not recorded. Eeferring to attempts to influence him, witness said he had been twice rung up by Toomey, who had made statements concerning the publicity to be given to the case. "Toomey threatened me over the telephone that unless the case were fixed up he.would 'put in some dirt,' " witness said. „ "AN UNWORTHY SUGGESTION." Continuing his evidence, Sehramm declared that he had given Toomey a statement of costs when the receipt was signed, and Toomey expressed himself as being quite satisfied. Witness' declared that Toomey had agreed to 82 guineas, plus disbursements, as witness's fee. Witness's clerk was in the office at the time the statement, "was produced. A cheque for £38 5s was made out, and a receipt was signed. Mr. Haigh: Can.you explain why some of this writing on the cheque is in different ink? Witness: It is not in different ink; It was all written at the same time. It may be blacker in, some -places than in others, but it was all written' with tho-same ink. You are making an unworthy suggestion. Mr. Haigh: When j'ou deduct moneys from your trust account, do you not give- receipts to your'clients? Witness: Not unless they ask for them. ; ■ . •Leslie McLaren ■ Smith, a law clerk employed in Schramni's office, gave corroborative evidence concerning the signing of the, cheque, and. the receipt. He said Toomey expressed satisfaction with the settlement. JUDGMENT FOR DEPENDANT. In giving judgment for the defendant. Mr. Wyvevn "Wilson, S.M., said that as far as the facts of the ease were concerned tho plaintiff asked him to find that the defendant and' his witness were perjuring themselves and that the defendant himself was guilty of making a false document by altering tho receipt after signature. "Where a question of veracity is concerned, it is as well to consider the two persons concerned," the Magistrate said. "The plaintiff says he is a masseur, but he cannot bring very much evidence to convineo me of this. He came to New Zealand over a year ago with the intention ofstarting a dancing establishment. He did not do so, but found ' something better,' which was apparently trafficking in silver, -which caused the Crown to seize £800, which he. says is his. "In addition, there was £470 stolen from some of his associates, but which eventually eanie back to him and was placed in the hands of the defendant. Claims to this money have apparently been made by. other persons, and ho has been advised to pay to some other per-, sons some of this money. Is his testimony ■to be believed, against that of the defendant, a member of an honourable profession, and one who. keeps his office records apparently in good order? For many months'he had <been dealing with the plaintiff's affairs, endeavouring to recover the silver, and had apparently done a considerable amount of work, justifying the fee he retained. The plaintiff apparently accepted the account given to him by the defendant. I believe the defendant also when he says that the plaintiff rang him up and threatened to make matters unpleasant through publicity in an endeavour to extract money from him. It also seems to me that this summons has been issued with extreme haste."

Judgment was given in favour of the defendant with costs.