£10,000 A WEEK BUSINESS

Greymouth Evening Star, 5 January 1934, Page 3

£10,000 A WEEK BUSINESS

“CUT PRICE” IN TOBACCO

LONDON. November 16. A statement that he “used to do £lO 000 a week in the tobacco bustness'” was made by a plaintiff in the King’s Bench Division yesterday, when there were references to the seci ecy surrounding the “cut price” trade Plaintiff, Mr Samuel Siuney Abelmerchant, Aberdare-Gardens, London, alleged time Barclays Bank were negligent in relation to the affairs of J. Lehrer. This allegation was denied. . Mr Aholson’s case was tluii he <xlended business ircnsacnens Wil ‘ l Lehrer on the assurance from me bank’s branch in < ommereial Read, E., that cheques on Lehrer’s account could be safely accepted, later Mr Adelson accepted bills of exchange lor Lehrer’s accommodation, the bank, he alleged, having given a confidential memorandum stating. “Lehrer is a respectable man having good business. He appears to be trustworthy and we consider your figures a good trade risk.” Some of the bills were not met. Mr Abelson alleged that he then discovered for the first time that Lehiei was an undischarged bankrupt, and, instead of having an account of his own with defendants, merely had authority to draw on his wife s account. Cross-examined, plaintiff said he had many businesses, including that of a gold and' silver refiner. He carried on the tobacco business in the name of Marble Arch Stores, but he could not say if it had been registered. “I am very well known,’ declared Mr Abelson, “and it was common knowledge in the trade that I sold cigarettes and tobacco at a cut price.” The Lehrers' would -never tell him where they were carrying on business, but he heard that they had a business in Spitalfields. Lehrer usually, with every order, gave an open bearer cheque for the goods, which Were not handed over until the cheque was cashed'. The goods were taken away in a. motorcar.

Mr J. W. Morris (defending): Is there a certain element of secrecy in this trade? Mr Abelson agreed.

Is that the reason why Marble Arch Stores was not registered?—l think it was registered. If it was not it was an accident and nothing more.

Mr Abelson added that he continued doing business with Lehrer until July, 1930’ From July, 1929, until July, 1930, he received 234 cheques from Lehrer. They were signed “p.p. D. Lehrer, J. ’ Lehrer,” and witness thought they were the signatures of the Lehrer brothers.

Mr Morris: Do those cheques amount to £27,366? —It is quite possible. ’

“It is comparatively nothing,” he added'. “I’handled £4,000,000 last year. I used to do £lO,OOO a week in the tobacco business, so figures don’t convey much.” “THU PROFIT IS SO SMALL.”

Mr Morris: If a man had paid £lO,OOO in six months would you agree that £5OO was a good trade risk? — No, not in the cut-price business, because the profit is so small. It is for that reason that I give no credit in the tobacco business.

The hearing was adjourned. After hearing argument on the sub-

mission that there was no case to go to the jury, the judge decided to take the jury’s opinion on the question whether the confidential reference given by defendant bank to Mr Abelson’s bankers (Westminster Bank) as to Lehrer was fraudulent. No evidence was called for the defence. Mr Malcolm Hilbery, K.C., for defendants, suggested that in the light of the turnover of Lehrer’s business. at the material time, the reference which Barclays Bank gave was a fair and honest opinion. The account with the bank, in the name of Lehrer’s wife and upon which Lehrer had authority to draw, showed that £27,000 was paid to Mr Abelson over a period of twelve months. Lehrer met his full liabilities to Mr Abelson, and his business turnover between May, 1929, and June, 1930, was nearly £60,000. The questions left to the jury and their answers were:

Was the reference of January 17, 1930, fraudulent?—No. Was it given with the intention that the information given in it should be conveyed to a customer of the Westminster Bank? —Yes.

Did defendants issue the printed form (on which the reference was given) with the intention that it should be used for the purpose of giving references to their customers?— There is no evidence of the intentions of the bank in issuing the form.