Lord and Moneylender

Manawatu Times, Volume LIV, Issue 6808, 11 January 1929, Page 4

Lord and Moneylender

PEER “UP A TREE” Once Borrowed £86,000 A PEER, who found himself “up a tree” at the gaming tables of Le Touquet, was the defendant in the English courts recently, in an action to recover the balance of money lent on two promissory notes, given at Le Touquet,. in 1926. The plaintiff was Mr. Lewis Schaverien, formerly a registered moneylender of Bond Street, London, and the defendant was Lord Rosslyn, of the Carlton Club. Mr. J. B. Melville, K.C., for the petitioner, said the action was brought to recover £340, the balance on two promissory notes, the signature and defaults to which were admitted. . There were a number of defences and the onus lay on Lord Rosslyn to make them good.

EUSTACE JOY, K.C., for Lord Rosslyn, said Lord Rosslyn was as anxious as anybody for the whole of the facts to be before the Court. His attitude was that he had had the money from Mr. Schaverien, who, he understood, was at one time a moneylender, and had paid him back in full amount, together with a very substantial sum for interest, and he '-’as advised that the plaintiff could not recover under the transaction. The second point was that Mr. Schaverien had had as much, by way of interest, as the Court would regard as conscionable. The moneylending transaction, Mr. Joy continued, did not take place at the registered office of Mr. .Schaverien as required by the Act. Decisions in the House of Lords had laid it down that the substantial part of the transaction must take lace at the rer’stered offices of the moneylender.

Until September, 1926, Lord Rosslyn had not met Mr. Schaverien, and knew nothing of him. Borrowed to Gamble It was while Lord Rosslyn, who had always a liking for “the. tables,” was at Le Touquet at the Casino—where he was often to be found —that he . first met Mr. Schaverien. Lord Rosslyn ‘’mind Irmself sitting next to Mr. Schaverien at one of the tables, where they began chatting on sporting matters. Lord Rosslyn was not having a very successful time,, and lost what money he had with him. There was a camaraderie of the tables, in such circur-stances, and Lord Rosslyn borrowed from his neighbour a sum of 5,000 francs — reckoned at about £3O. “He did so,” continued Mr. Joy, “hoping, as most people do, that the wheel would turn in his favour and enable him to repay the loan next day. “Unfortunately, matters did not go better, but worse, and he found himself, to use a familiar expression, rather ‘up a tree’ by the small hours of the morning, and, accordingly, in the pressure of the circumstances, he wrote a note to Mr. Schaverien. Loan of £SOO “He asked for a loan of £SOO, repayable monthly, or at the end of six months. “They met at the Normandy Hotel, and Mr. Schaverien igreed to let Lord Rosslyn have £3OO only, repayable in six monthly of £9O each. He handed Lord Rosslyn • a cheque, and said he would get immediate credit for it at the bank. “Then a remarkable thing happened,” said Mr. Joy. ' “Out 'of Mr. Schaverien’s pocket came the stock-in-trade of the moneylenders’ normal business. He produced a promissory note. It was filled in and stamped for the proper amount. It was put before Lord Rosslyn, who signed it, and handed over five cheques for £9O. “He could not hand over the sixth because he had exhausted his stock of cheque books.” Before Mr. Schaverien actually handed over he said: “I shall want you to write a letter to my address .in London, 6 Old Bond Street.” Lord Rosslyn agreed to do so, and the letter •was sent off. The second transaction was of exactly the same nature, and for a similar amount, the only difference being that there was no request for a formal letter, <

After Lord Rosslyn had paid back the whole of the principal—£6oo—he also paid a further sum of £l4O, and he considered that was good interest Lord Rosslyn was a man of . substantial means, and Was not a bad risk from a moneylender’s point of view. An expert would amply satisfy the Court that the transaction was harsh. The rate of interest charged , was about 900 per cent., ' - - His Christmas Bonus In evidence, Lord Rosslyn agreed he was frequently gambling at the Casino. When he. met Mr. Schaverien, the latter’s name and address conveyed nothing to him. Mr. Valetta: When you borrowed the 5,000 francs you had high hopes of paying him back?—Yes. Those hopes did not materialise?— Not then. (Laughter.) Lord Rosslyn said his income was at least £SOO a month, and sometimes he got a bonus at Christmas which amounted in 1926 to £2,000. He had this money free of incometax, and, in addition, he had a house in this country to live in rent free. Mr. Melville (cross-examining): This is not the first time you have. had money-lending transactions?—No. Throughout the whole of your life you have been having recourse to gambling and money-lending?—Yes. You wrote a book about your life so that your reputation might become as public as possible?—l don’t know. To associate your name with gambling, you called. your book: “My Gamble with. Life”? —Yes. Borrowed from Scum You say your usual source of supplies—Mr. Sam Lewis—having dried up, you had to seek the scum of the moneylending fraternity?—l did. Did you borrow £86,000 from Mr. Sam Lewis?—l think it was more than that, but he got if all back. And you were, in fact, made bankrupt in 18977—1 was, but it. was annulled. Mr. Justice Acton —You mean that you paid?—Yes, 17s 6d in the £, I think. : You are also a gentleman who does not hesitate to • leave the country if you want to prevent your creditors from getting at you ?—What do you mean by that? I was reading in your book: “In Christmas,' 1925, I wintered in Madeira, for rest’s sake and to avoid troublesome creditors.” Tried to Break the Bank Mr. Melville (to Lord Rosslyn): While at Madeira you were served with a number of petitions for bankruptcy?—Only one, I think. You were with a syndicate to work a scheme for breaking the bank of Monte Carlo? —Yes. And do you say in your book: "From lack of restraint, I went to Monte Carlo before my confreres and lost £2,000 of our Ostend winnings”?— Yes. Lord Rosslyn said that several petitions had been served on him by moneylenders since 1925. He did not know that Mr. Schaverien was one of the biggest moneylenders in London. After Lord Rosslyn had left the box, counsel conferred, and ultimately it was announced that an agreement had been reached, and that the case would be withdrawn.