A REMARKABLE STORY

Marlborough Express, Volume XLVII, Issue 156, 4 July 1913, Page 6

A REMARKABLE STORY

CURIOUS TRANSACTIONS.

BUILDING SOCIETY'S CLAIM

A civil claim involving some unusual features was heard in the "Wellington Magistrate's Court on Tuesday before Mr W. G. Riddell, S.M., (says the Times). The plaintiffs, the United Building Society, sought to recover from the defendants, John and Mary J. Searle, the sum of £50, plus interest, for money advanced. The statement of claim alleged that on October 24th, 1912, they were induced by representations of the defendants to lend them the sum of £50 on the security of six shares in the plaintiff Building Society, on the untrue representation that the transfer of such shares to' the plaintiff .as security was a transfer thereof by Mrs Searle.,

The defendants are husband and wife. '

The secretary of the society deposed that Mrs Seaorle was a shareholder in the society and that some time last year her husband approached him with a. request for an advance on the six shares his wife held. Searle explained that he came on behalf of his wife, whom he said was too ill to attend to the matter herse'f. Witness asked him to bring a letter from his wife, making a formal application for the loan. A letter was duly received, purporting to be from Mrs Searle, and in consequence at a meeting of directors it was decided to advance the money. Searle called at the office and witness supplied him with the receipt and transfer forms for his wife's signature, which lie , (Searle) undertook to obtain. The

next morning he again visited witness and produced the documents duly signed. Searle certainly ledl him to believe, added witness, that it was his wife's signature. The money was accordingly paid over to him (Searle) by means of a cheque payable to Mrs Seaxle, or bearer. Some' time afterwards,he had reason to communicate with Mrs Searle, who repudiated all 'knowledge of the transaction.

Seai-le's story, which was disputed by his wife, was, in effect, that»he had had Mrs Searle's authority ;to sign her name. Giving evidence, the defendant, said that everything; was done with his wife's knowledge and agreement. He had always acted for his wife in all her business transactions. As a matter of fact he had signed his wife's name, as trans>feiree to the original deed' conveying the. shares to her. Searle further contwded that two-thirds of the mon<s«f paid by way of subscription' to the Building Society on account of the shares was his own. He had not attempted to mislead the Society in any way. The £50 had gone in the payment of £40 in liquidation of a mortgage: on their house property, and1 £9 12s in payment of arrears in subscriptions to the Building Society. Always acting as her agent, he had done nothing but borrow, borrow, on her .behalf for the last four years, and he was getting sick of it. He had frequently put his hand in his pocket on his wife's account. Recently he tried to put his foot down. The wife's story was that when she married Searle, she was a widow. She possessed several thousand pounds, while he had no money at all. Within a short time of their marriage Searle had endeavored to persuade her to make over property to him. Mrs Searle also made other allegations against her husband, and disclaimed any knowledge of the trans^action with the Building Society. She had never once authorised Searle to sign her name to any document, and had certainly not done so in the case under review. Also she had never signed any document through her husband's agency. Further evidence by Mrs Searle was to the effect that she and her husband had been living on bad terms, and that she had mortgaged certain of her property in order to accommodate her husband.

The magistrate reserved; his decision.