CONSPIRACY ALLEGED

Nelson Evening Mail, Volume LXIII, 22 December 1928, Page 12

CONSPIRACY ALLEGED

SIGNATURE ON GUARANTEE ACTION DISMISSED • That there was no evidence to support the allegation of conspiracy and that tlie signature was obtained in the course of a fraudulent scheme were the reasons given, by Mr Justice Adams in the Supremo Court at Christchurch in the course of a reserved judgment dismissing the claim for £2OOO made by the Dominion Motors, Ltd., against John Fleming arid Sarah Jane Fleming. The action was one in. which plaintiff claimed £2OOO from the defendant Fleming or in . the alternative the same amount from Sarah Jane Fleming. It was alleged that in September, 1927, George Wilcox, an cx-Lifo Guardsman who was sent to gaol, was indebted to the plaintiff company to the extent of £4ot)o. In October, 1927, plaintiff required Wilcox to furnish security for this amount. Ho received two bank guarantee forms from plaintiff and later returned them signed “S. J. Fleming.” It was alleged that tlie defendants bad conspired with Wilcox to defraud the plaintiff by representing that the guarantee bad been signed by Jolm Fleming. The defendants filed separate statements of defence. John Fleming denied that ho had refused to sign tlie guarantee. Sarah June Fleming admitted signing the guarantee, but denied that there was any intention to defraud.

Ilis Honour said lie was satisfied beyond doubt that Mrs Fleming’s intention in signing tho document at the request of Wilcox was entirely innocent, and the case so far as it depended on conspiracy to defraud had completely failed. Ilis Honour then reviewed tlie action from the view that Sarah Jane Fleming agreed in writing to pay tlie plaintiff £2OOO should Wilcox fail to do so. Tlie whole of the evidence had been devoted exclusively to the charge of conspiracy or fraud, and there was nowhere any suggestion that tho plaintiff fit any stage relied upon any contract between, this defendant and the company. On the contrary it was strenuously insisted that she had represented the signature to be that of her husband. Her signature, however, was obtained by Wilcox in the course of a fraudulent scheme. The action, would be dismissed, and as the defendants had severed their defences they would each have judgment for costs of the action. The costs of the second day’s hearing (£ls 15s) were also allowed both defendants.