MONEYLENDER'S SUIT.

Lyttelton Times, Volume CXVII, Issue 17076, 27 January 1916, Page 3

MONEYLENDER'S SUIT.

BALKIND V. CURLETT AND WTLLTS. CLAIM FOR £156. At the Magistrate’s Court yesterday, before Mr T. A. B. Bailey. S.M., Lay.ams AVolfo Bnlkind (Mr M’Dougall) sued Huston Curlett (Mr Rowe) am) Joseph Willis (Mr Anthony), for £156 14s. Air M’Dougall, in opening, said that a, Airs Mary Ann Vincent owned furniture in a house in AValker Street and in the Central Dining Rooms in Colombo Street, Christchurch. The furniture was subject to registered hills of sale to the plaintiff, and under these there was due to plaintiff on December 8. 1914. £156 14s. Subseqwntly to that date Mrs Vincent made the acquaintance of the defendant Ciirlett, who was .informed of the position in regard to Bnlkind. Curlett advised Airs Vincent that she was very foolish to go on paying instalments to Bnlkind, and suggested a, series of transactions. He advised her to discontinue paving rentals in Walker aiyl Colombo Streets. Tn AValker Street Ciiilett was the landlord ; in Colombo Stroot the Singer Sowing ■Machine Company was the landlord. A bill of sale did not protect the goods against seizure by the landlord for rent. Curlett soizpd tho furniture in AValker Street, and Curlett and AVillis, an auctioneer, approached the Singer Company and induced the company to seize the furniture in Colombo Street, representing that it was by Airs Vincent’s request, as the company had always treated her well as her landlord. The furniture being seized, a sale nas conducted hv AVillis shortly afterwards, and Curlett bought nearly all the furniture. The sale was not advertised or was insufficiently advertised. Airs Vincent was then made a bankrupt, at Cnrlatt’s suggestion, and a Mrs Edith Connelly was nominated by Airs Vincent ns her assignee to take delivery of the furniture. Mrs A7incent was allowed to use the furniture, under a bailment, and was started in fresh din<ng rooms. 'Hie new dining rooms did not prosper, and Curlett seized the furniture again, and had it disposed of. • Air Rowe protested that Air Al'Dougall’s opening was at variance with the facts in several important particulars. Ho asked that Air Al’Dougnll should confino himself to facts that could he proved. Air Al’Dougall said that fho claim of his client against Curlett was based on the well-known legal principle that the man who counselled a breach of a contract must he responsible for losses occasioned hv such breach. There was a further ground of conspiracy between Curlett and Willis to defeat the contract between plaintiff and Airs A 7 in cent. o Mary Ann A 7 incent gave her evidence in n low tone. her remarks being for the most part inaudible at the reporters’ table. She was understood to say that at a time when her indebtedness to Bnlkind was £ISG, Curlei.t told her not to pay Bnlkind. She objected that if she did not pay Balkind would put the bailiffs in. Curlett said, “That’s just what I want him to do.” By Curlett’s advics she asked the Singer Company to distrain on her furniture, for rent. Curlett did not tell her not to pay her rent, but he advised her to ask tho Singer Company to put tho bailiffs in. Witness knew Balkind would advance money to pay the rent if she asked him. She had had no trouble with Balkind The furniture covered by Balkind’s bills of sale was of , a greater value than the amount secured. To Air Rowe: She had given Balkind two or three bills of sale. She borrowed £lO in July 1913, and on that loan part of her household furniture was security. She paid that loan nearly all off and then borrowed more money from Bnlkind. She could not remember what the security was on the second occasion, or the date of the second occasion, or the amount borrowed. Air At’Dongnll protested that Mr Rowe must be hound by the documents before the Court. Air Rowe said he was trying to test the reliability of the witness’s memory. The witness, continuing, said that she believed the amount borrowed on the second occasion was £4O. Air Rowe said that as a matter of fact tho first bill of sale was for £93. That was the bill of sale entered into in July, 1913. On December 8, *1914, a second hill of sale was entered into, tho amount being £64. The two totalled £157, .and notwithstanding that witness now said she thought' she had paid off most of tho first one, she had given evidence that she still owed £136 14s. AVitnoss, continuing, said that on January 12. 1915. slio borrowed a further £45 from Bnlkind. Air M’Douga.ll said that there was an error in the statement of claim. Tho date of the liability of £156 14s was-December 8, 14)15, not -December 8, 1914. Air Rowe protested that the change of date put the defence at a disadvantage. AA’itne.ss, continuing, said she might have ruado a different statement regarding her indebtedness in the bankruptev proceedings. Air Row© said Ihe bankruptcy file would show that the indebtedness was set down as £ll4. Air M’DongnlJ said there was a further alteration to make in the date of liability. It was really January 12, 1915, not December 8, 1915. AA’itness, continuing, said that she started business in the Tower Dining 'Roams on £2O of borrowed capita!. In January last she was £lo6 in debt, Eho made the acquaintance of Curlett in November 1914. AH. the chattels covered in the- . security belonged to witness's motlici. Tliev were in- her mother s -liouw the'time of witness's bankruptcy* -'"d had never been seized by Curlett or the Singer Company. Curlett induce witness to make certain statements in the bankruptcy proceedings which were not true. ", , . u To Air Anthony: She did not tell AVillis that the goods to he sent to his auction room were not goods u ll bill of sale to Bnlkind. AVillis had nothing to do with the,, arrangement that she should allow' her, rent to inn in arrears. AVillis told her she ought to , file after she hod boon advised to that effect by Curlett and by her solidtor. She was in arrears.with «* c * incuts to Balkind for two or weeks when the sale of tho goods too c place. To Air Al’Dougnll: The bailiff was m the Colombo Street premises a day ami a night before AVillis carted .the g°™ h away. Someone paid the bailiff- j 1” auction sale took place on the day she filed in bankruptcy. She tiled befme the sale took place. The landlords v io distrained on lier furniture did no leave her £-!0 worth of filrmture ui either rase. They left- her nothing whatever. Tlie money she borrowed while in business went into furn't’ l She had furniture of the value of • Some of the goods seized were not sol , and she had never received an nccoun of what had happened to goods no sold. It was made a condition ot uw arrangement with Curlett that A l imust he the auctioneer. A\ illis to her nob to mention Gurlott s name, 1 the game would be up.

Arthur Hove, manager of the Singer Sewing Al.ac.hiuo Company, Christchurch, gave evidence that the company was the landlord ot last witness when she occupied dining-rooms in Colombo Street. Mrs A T incent got into arrears, and her solicitor called on witness, said Mrs A’in cent had no chance of paying the arrears, and advised witness to distrain on the furniture. He saw no account sales in regard to the furniture. He left the matter to the company’s solicitors, and got a cheque foi the rent through them. At this stage the ease was adjourned to a dato to be fixed by the Alagistrate.