TO FORCE BANK STRONG ROOM

Greymouth Evening Star, 18 April 1936, Page 11

TO FORCE BANK STRONG ROOM

DISPUTE OVER £25,001) IN GOLD LONDON, March 6. A proposal to break open a private strong-room in a London bank, believed to contain about £25,000 in gold, was discussed in the Court of Appeal yesterday. The keys, it was stated, had been lost. It was decided that an order should be made on terms to be agreed by counsel later, to ascertain what was actually in the strong-room. The gold was stated to consist of seven bars weighing over 2,835 oz in all, and 1,401 American dougle-eagles, each worth £4. It is believed that this treasure lies in the Midland Bank in London.

A private company called Fondation de Famille Elisabeth et Hans LudwigCarl von Meister et Leila von Meister, of Geneva, are plaintiffs in an action against the Midland Bank, and Bertrand Coles Neidecker, Aubrey Coles Neidecker, and Sybil Neidecker, of New York. They claim in a declaration that they are the owners, and entitled to possession of the gold. The matter came before the court as an appeal against the refusal of a Judge in Chambers to make an order enabling the plaintiffs to inspect the safes supposed to contain the gold. Mr. Van den Berg, K.C. (for the plaintiffs), said that the gold was deposited on their behalf in the safes by the Travellers’ Bank, which had headquarters in Paris. The action arose out of the failure of that bank, which was run by the Neideckers, who had gone to America. The Fondation de Famille was a family concern formed to take over the assets and securities of the Von Meister family. From time to time remittances were sent to the Travellers’ Bank, who turned them into gold bars and gold coins which, the Bank represented; they had deposited in the Midland Bank safes. “But we want to be sure it is there,” said Mr. Van den Berg. “If we have to proceed to trial with the action, it may involve considerable expense and we may find, like Old Mother Hubbard, that the cupboard is bare.” The Midland Bank, he added, sa,id that they had parted with essential keys of the strong-room and safes to the renters, and there were no duplicates. It was clear that the Neideckers had no intention of producing the keys they got from the bank.

The bank said that there was no way of opening the strong-room and safes short of forcing them or blowing them open. The answer of the plaintiffs was that the resources of civilisation were not exhausted because one party had gone to the United States and refused to produce the safe-keys. The plaintiffs could not he kept out of their property for ever. “SKILFUL LOCK-PICK.”

Mr. Van den Berg added that, according to an affidavit by Mr. Francis Covell, a member of the firm of Withers and Co., solicitors to the plaintiffs, a suggestion was made to the bank that an ex-officer of Scotland Yard had given the assurance that he could “put his hand on a man who will open any safe.” Mr. Covell also said: “I am advised that any skilful lock-picker could open the safes if he were granted the necessary facilities.” The answer on behalf of the bank was that the safe-makers said the strong-room, in the absence of its own keys, could only be opened by violent means, and entry could not be effected by any lock-picking process. Mr. Harold Murphy, K.C. (for the bank) contended that the judge’s decision that the order asked for ought not to be made at this stage was correct.

The judge did not fail to realise that, at some stage, it might be necessary in the interests of justice that the’ safes should be cut open. But, having regard to the grave business objection to this course from the bank’s point of view, it was premature now to make an order. It would involve the forcing of all four safes inside the strong-room and the cutting open of no fewer than six separate locks —the outer door, the inner door and four separate safes. Lord Justice Scott (who heard the appeal with Mr. Justice Eve): Is it not very unfortunate that a system should exist which, from a purely structural point of view, renders it very difficult for the Court to make an order —which is obviously desirable —for the inspection of property such as this? I should have thought that this was the very stage at which the order should be made. Mr. Murphy: We suggest that no sufficient steps have been taken to ascertain whether there is a reasonable probability that these gold bars

and coins are there at all. No interrogatory has been administered to the Neideckers to find out.

Air. Alelford Stevenson, representing the Neideckers, said that they were now in America. “I am not instructed to consent to the present application,” counsel added, “but I don’t feel that I ought to oppose it. As trustees of the goods we are in the hands of the Court?’ Air. Stevenson said that the key of the strong-room had been lost in a Paris fiat. “I am instructed that the gold is now now in the safe,” he added. X-RAY SUGGESTION. Lord Justice Scott said that the court thought an interim order ought to be made to find out exactly what was in the safes. They were adverse to expensive litigation going on that might be absolutely useless, and they were disposed to make an order at an early date.

But before doing so he would like the parties to “put their heads together” to see how the preliminary point now being argued could have light thrown upon it. The matter could be adjourned for perhaps a fortnight while the question was being investigated. Mr. Stevenson: I don’t know whether the possibility of taking an X-ray photograph of these safes has been considered? That might determine whether there was metal in them.

Mr. Murphy said he did not think any useful result would be obtained because the photograph would have to be taken through the strong-room door, and between that and the doors of the safes there was a space containing a steel grille. One could not get a photograph of the safes without first breaking open the stroilg-l'oom door. After further argument, Lord Justice Scott said that the Court did not think the position would be cleared up substantially by ordinary interrogatories to be administered to the Neideckers at this stage, and they proposed to make an order. “We should be glad to have the assistance of counsel as to the terms of the order,” he added. Air. Alurphy: I take it that your lordships’ intention is that what takes place should be in the presence of an officer of the court? Lord Justice Scott: Yes, and, . I think, in the presence of the solicitors on each side. Mr. Stevenson: May I make the same request on behalf of the Neideckers ?

Lord Justice Scott:, Yes, representatives of the three firms of solicitors and an office rof the court. That would give complete protection to the bank. You will consider the details in regard to the order and mention the matter later, not necessarily today.