LOANS TO SPIRITUALIST

Greymouth Evening Star, 17 March 1934, Page 12

LOANS TO SPIRITUALIST

JUDGE AND “EASY DUPES.” LONDON, January 26. A widow, who said that she lent money to a spiritualistic leader because she was advised to do so, she thought, by her dead husband’s spirit, was plaintiff in an action before Mr. Justice Goddard in the King’s Bench Division yesterday. She was Mrs. Signe Josephine Kirwan, of Beaulieu Private Hotel, South Norwood-hill, and she claimed the return. of thG money from Mr. Percival B. Beddow, of Anerley Station-road, Anerley. Mr. R. Storry Deans (for Mrs. Kirwan) described the case as a story, of “innocence on the one hand and imposition on the other.” Mrs. Kirwan, a Swedish woman, lost her husband, an Englishman, in 1924. Hoping that she might find consolation in spiritualism, she attended seances in Lunhamroad, Gipsy-hill. A medium named Marie Elfram, who was supposed to be “controlled” by a spirit known as ‘‘Edmund,” told her, during a seance, that she had her husband’s permission to lend Mr. Beddow money. She lent Mr. Beddow £lOO. Later, as the result of another seance, she lent him further sums of £2OO, £5OO and £4OO, beleiving all tee time that she was meeting tee wishes of her late husband. “MOST BEAUTIFUL SOUL.” . Mr. Beddow was one of tee leaders of spiritualism, and tee medium had told Mrs. Kirwan that he was “tee most beautiful soul on earth.” One defence, said counsel, was teat the money was paid in order teat defendant might carry on tee work of spiritualistic propaganda, especially through a paper called “Spiritual Truth.” If that failed, then defendant said, tee money was to be repaid if he found he could do it without embarrassing himself. There was evidence, counsel added, teat tee money was not used for religious objects, but had gone to the personal use of Beddow, who was a printer. He had been living at the rate of over £lOOO a year. Mr. Beddow, in evidence, said that he mentioned to Mrs. Kirwan tee difficulty of carrying on the work of spiritualism, and she offered to help. Shortly afterwards he received a cheque from her. 4 He regarded all the money as gifts. ' . Mr. Justice Goddard: Do you think it right to take £1650 from a woman 1 labouring under the distress of losing her husband, whose income was only £9OO a year? Witness: I know nothing about ner income. I did not know she was labouring under distress. Mr. Justice Goddard, giving judgment, said the action was brought originally to recover £1650 lent to the defendant by Mrs: Kirwan. It was admitted that the last three items, £750, could not be recovered as loans. “I express no opinion as to whether they can be recovered in any other form of action,’ he went on. “I do not want to encourage the plaintiff or discourage her to bring any other form of proceedings she may think fit. “The story is odd and not very savoury. I desire particularly to say nothing teat can in any way hurt the feelings of anybody who believes in spiritualism, as many people, I know quite sincerely and strenuously do believe. “But, unhappily, as far too many cases in the Courts have shown, where people, especially women, come under tee influence of that belief and come into contact with people who either practise or profess to practise its tenets, they are easy dupes. “The case has been put as a conspiracy. There is evidence of a conspiracy, but it is not necessary for me to find whether there is a conspiracy or not. All I say is that the facts may well merit the attention of the Director of Public Prosecutions, or tee police, or both.” . Mr. Justice Goddard added that he disbelieved the defendant’s story that Mrs. Kirwan had released her rights to the money, and gave judgment for plaintiff for £9OO, with costs.