“PERSIAN CARPETS"

Evening Star, Issue 22351, 29 May 1936, Page 12

“PERSIAN CARPETS "

A DISHONEST PRACTICE “ I have no doubt that a very ingenious scheme of defrauding people by means of imitation carpets was going on in this country,” said the Judge during the hearing of a case at Manchester ASsiz.es in March, arising out of the stopping of a cheque for £IOO which had been given in return for certain imitation Persian carpets. M. Mercado Ltd., importers and dealers in carpets, of 10 York place, Leeds, sought to recover £IOO, the value of a cheque from Miss B. E. Fitzpatrick, proprietress of a mixed shop, of Derwent street, Workington. Mr E. H. Hemmerde, K.G., for the plaintiff, said that the defendant admitted drawing the cbecuo in favour of a John Davidson, and that two days afterwards she stopped it. She alleged that she had been induced to issue the cheque by means of a fraud. Mercado Ltd., said Mr Hemmerde, did a large part of their business with hawkers, and last year, out of a turnover of £40,000, a sum of £20,0C0 represented cash transactions in this direction. The firm were also stated to act as bankers for hawkers who paid' for goods with cheques of third parties, some £9OO worth of goods being paid for in that way in the past 12 months. The cheque in dispute was banded to the firm by a man who bought carpets to the amount of £IOO which actually cost the firm £Bl 4s 3d. Mr Hemmerde stated that on November 1 Mi’J Fitzpatrick was visited by two men woo represented themselves to be sailors, and said they had some valuable Persian carpets and a rug, for which Miss Fitzpatrick gave £6 in cash .and 10s worth of cigarettes. Ori November 4 a man giving the name of Metcalfe and saying he represented a firm of antique dealers in London valued the carpets and rug at £65, and agreed to buy them at that price. On November 7 the two men called again and induced Miss Fitzpatrick to buy further rugs to the value of £IOO, saying they were actually worth £l5O more, and that the duty on them would amount to £4O. The cheque was drawn in favour of J. Davidson, The London firm of antique dealers did not put in an appearance, and she stopped the cheque. Mr Hammerde added that it was not suggested that the plaintiff firln knew of the men who visited Miss Fitzpatrick. CHEQUES (STOPPED. For the defendant, Mr G. Justin Lynskey, K.C., claimed that the carpets for which Miss Fitzpatrick paid £6 were valued at about £2, and those for which she paid £IOO were stated to be worth £l2. The clearing of the cheque was not carried out in the usual manner, but, as in a number of other instances, the cheque was not only cleared direct, but the bank was instructed to “ wire fate.” It was, he submitted, an extraordinary thing that the total number of cheques debited to the firm’s account as not having been honoured in the three years of their existence was 65. In 30 cases payment was stopped because of allegations that the drawers had been received, and 29 of those 30 cheques were in respect of carpet transactions of a similar nature to those,in the present case. Miss Fitzpatrick said one of the men Who sold her the goods poured lemonade oyer the carpet, and said that the more it was used and the older it got the better it would-be. When the man who claimed to bo an antique dealer arrived he examined the carpet for about five minutes and said slaves bad taken years to put in a single piece. The Judge: Where was that carpet Wade ? Mr Lynskey replied that his experts told him it was manufactured in Belgium. . The Judge; They do not have slaves in Belgium. Mr Maurice Mercado, managing director of plaintiff company, said' his firm had about 500 hawker customers. The_ profit on the transaction with Davidson was £lB 15s Bd. They had no reason to believe the cheque would be stopped. Robert_ Mercado, in reply to the judge, said lie was aware some hawkers were representing these reproduction carpets as genuine Persian goods. Judgment was given for the defendant with costs, the Judge observing that'he had no doubt that Miss Fitzpatrick had been defrauded. The plaintiffs, he said, had not satisfied him that value had been given in good faith for the bill subsequent to the fraud practised upon the defendant.