BANK PASSBOOKS

Nelson Evening Mail, Volume LXXIII, 2 December 1940, Page 6

BANK PASSBOOKS

CLAIM FOR POSSESSION SOLICITORS AT VARIANCE A claim for the possession of bank passbooks was heard before Mr T. E. Maunsell. S.M., in the Magistrate’s Court this morning. The plaintiff was Robert White (Mr M. C. H. Cheek), and J the defendants Florence Maude White (widow) and Gurdon Samuel. Mr Cheek said this was a remarkable action in that the claim had to be : made at all. There were only two j questions involved: <1) Were these r passbooks the property of plaintiff? (2) Was he entitled to get them back? They ; had been in the possession of Mr Samuel, and he had been asked for . them at least twice: the first time verbally. when Mr Samuel said that he was going to keep them because of a pos- * i sible action by Mrs White. He did not i deny that they were the property of .' Mr R. White. Secondly. Mr Samuel j said that the books had been in the possession of Mr W. White for some time, * and they could be regarded as his pror perty. But bank passbooks must be re- / garded as the personal property of th® owner. 1 PLAINTIFF’S EVIDENCE Robert White said that his son took / command of his shop when witness was i ill, and took charge of the passbooks. » The son died in July. After he had died witness asked for the books but had not 1 got all of them yet. Cross-examined, witness said that on 1 29th August. 1921. a credit of £2OO was i paid in by his son. It was witness’* money. Mr Cheek submitted that all this 1 could have no bearing on whether they 1 were Mr White’s passbooks, j Mr Samuel said that the book wa* given as evidence of the son’s deposit on the house that the son lived in. They 1 wanted only the 1921 book. Counsel | hinted at further legal action. Witness said that if Mrs White said j that her husband purchased the pro- | perty from witness and paid £2OO down it would be a “cock and bull story.” If | Mrs White said that her husband purI chased the house at any figure she would be quite wrong. He did not know I who paid the rates. The insurance on 1 tjie house was paid out of witness's 1 money. He hoped his solicitors had ordered Mrs White to get out of the house. His son had no interest in the j house. j Mr Cheek said that the defence was trying to connect a withdrawal of £2OO ’ from Wm. E. White’s account on 31st ' August with a payment on the house j on 29th August. 1 SOLICITOR’" EVIDENCE 5 i Evidence was given by William Ver--5 non Rout, who said he had acted as s j solicitor for Robert White. He had ap- - plied for Robert White’s passbooks and » he produced the replies received. > Witness protested against the retention I of the books, but Mr Samuel said that ■ they were of importance to his client in s i a claim she was making for the house, t i Witness made a formal demand to Mrs ’ White, and received a reply from ; Messrs Maginnity, Son and Samuel, i Witness produced the reply. Cross-examined, witness admitted ■ that he had been permitted to inspect ’ the books at Mr Samuel’s office, and he supposed he should be thankful for ■ small mercies. He knew of no reason I I why he should not be permitted to i take the books away. A LEGAL POINT In reply to the Magistrate as to how Mr Samuel could be joined as a defendant. as he was holding them .as an agent, Mr Cheek said that it seemed proper to name Mr Samuel to forestall a possible defence. The Magistrate remarked that it seemed far-reaching for the legal profession if a solicitor advising a client to keep possession was to be liable for damages. Mr Samuel said that Mr W. E. White managed the business on behalf of Mr R. White. J Evidence was given by Florence ; White, the defendant, who said that, af- ! ter inquiries had been made, a number j of books were found in the garage, cov- , ered with dust. Mr Rout was told he could have all the books except the passbooks. When she was going to be married her husband had told her that he had paid his father £2OO, and she had a memorandum which she made at the time about it. She always paid the rates out of her husband’s wages, and the rate notices were made out in her husband’s name. For a long time she paid the insurance premiums out of housekeeping money. Three years ago her husband took it over. All her husband had to show that it was his house was a memorandum in a book they kept, which she produced. The only record was in the passbook which, she claimed, belonged to her husband, because of the entry of the £2OO. She was only claiming the 1921 book. There was nothing to prevent her from taking them from her solicitor, Mr Samuel. MAGISTRATE’S DECISION The Magistrate held that the defence had failed. Defendant was keeping the book because it was evidence of the sale of the house, but she was putting a fictitious value on the passbook. The passbook was no evidence against White senior, but only against the bank. Defendant Samuel was wrongly joined. as he was acting only as an agent Mr Cheek asked to be heard on this point, and quoted authority. Mr Samuel said that in refusing to hand the books over he was acting as Mrs White’s mouthpiece. The Magistrate said that it was a pity Mr Samuel had not looked up law on the matter. It was not the Magistrate’s duty to do so. Decision was reserved as regards Mr Samuel’s’ position, and counsel was asked to cite authorities. “The question is of great importance t' the legal profession.” said the Magistrate. “I don’t think Mr Cheek is doing a service to his profession,” he added with a smile.