CANON PARTS WITH £20,000

Greymouth Evening Star, 2 May 1936, Page 8

CANON PARTS WITH £20,000

TO “FASCINATING” MAN. LONDON, March 19. “I cannot see why I was such a Paynter, of Blackmore House, Brentfool,” said Canon Francis Samuel wood, Essex, in the King s Bench Division yesterday. He stated that he had “lent £20,000” to a firm. Canon Paynter was sued by the Dunn Trust Ltd., registered moneylenders, of Princes-street, Hanoversquare, respecting two bills of exchange of £2,000 each. The bill was endorsed by S. W. Tanfield, who was cited as the third party in the proceedings. Canon Paynter described his first meeting with Tanfield. “He came to my house,” he said, “and told me that certain transactions which I had with a gold-mining company were a tremendous fraud. I

held 5.200 and took the matter up with a solicitor recommend to me, I think, by Tanfield, and got out of paying for the whole transaction. “Tanfield invited me to his place in Bond-street and told me about his company. He told me a number of things which I know now were absolute lies.”

Mr F. P. M. Schiller, K.C.: What was tiie name of the company? Canon Paynter: John Dew Ltd. He added that he lent, in all, about £20,000 to this firm. Mr Schiller: What did you get for your money?—3l,ooo share certificates.

Mr Justice Goddard: Is the firm wound up yet? Mr Schiller: No, it is going on; hope may be in existence still. Canon Paynter -went on to describe other transactions with Tanlield and added: “He was an extraordinary man and had a wonderful fascination. I cannot tell you why. He always seemed to back up the poor man and do everything that was philanthropic.”

JUDGE’S SYMPATHY. Giving judgment, Mr Justice Goddard said that he had the greatest sympathy with Canon Paynter, who had, no doubt, been swindled in a very gross manner. “It is only fair to say,” continued the Judge, “that he has not been without advice from friends, but, for some reason which I cannot fathom, he refused that advice and continued to deal with a man who, to anybody with 1 the smallest perspective of the obvious, would seem to be a rogue.” Giving details of Tanfield’s career, Mr Justice Goddard said that he went bankrupt. In 1934 he was prosecuted at the Old Bailey on a charge of fraud and conspiracy, and acquitted. He found a potential gold mine in Canon Paynter, and was engaged in getting as much money as he could out of him in exchange for shares in John Dew Ltd.

There was no evidence that that firm was a fraud, and'no steps were taken against Tanfield respecting it. “Canon Paynter," Mr Justice Goddard' proceeded, “seems to have had a fatal facility for putting his name to a cheque or a bill of exchange. I see no reason to say that the plaintiffs acted other than in good faith when they discounted the two bills in question.” Judgment, was entered for the Dunn Trust Ltd. for £4,000 and costs against Canon Paynter, and for Canon Paynter against Tanfield, with costs.