THE AFFAIRS OF THE JUBILEE PLUNGER.

New Zealand Herald, Volume XXVI, Issue 9452, 24 August 1889, Page 2 (Supplement)

THE AFFAIRS OF THE JUBILEE PLUNGER.

The case of Cochrane v. Moore was commenced in the Queen's Bench on July S. The plaintiff was a money-lender in Jermynstreet, and he had advanced at various times sums of money which amounted to £10,000 to Mr. Ernest Bonzon, who was said of late to have been well known in the racing world. Security for the advances was given uj>on some racehorses, which were afterwards .sold at Tattcrsall's, and the plaintiff received most of his money back. One of the horses sold was a steeplechaser called Kilworth, and it realised Lb-7 His 10il. Mr. Moore, a gentleman jockey, who had ridden for Mr. Benzon, claimed to be entitled to a one-fourth .-hare in the horse, while the plaintiff claimed the whole of the money realised, under the security for his advances. Messrs. Tatter.-all paid the money into court, under an interpleader order, and the question now to be disposed of was winch of the two parties was entitled to it. On July 9 Mr. Cochrane, the plaintiff, was recalled to show that after the bill of sale had been given he paid various sums for Mr. Benton in respect of training horses, for forfeits, and tor other matters. The amount in all was £S'26 Gs 3d ; and these payments had to be made before the horses could be sold. Mr. Kisch said that these figures showed that the plaintiff had suffered an actual money loss through his transactions with Mr. Benzon which amounted to £(500. Mr. Ernest Benzon swore that lie had no idea he was signing a bill of sale ; he thought it was a kiutl of bill of sale. Cross - examined : He had had other money transactions before this—he had borrowed money of Mr. Lewis. He wanted 1 money when he came of age, and he borrowed £10.000 of Mr. Lewis. lie paid a large cheque for that and other things— £33,000 in all. What interest did you pay then ? He did not know. Was it sixty per cent. ? He supposed so, as that was the usual thing, (Laughter.) Lord Justice Lopes : According to your experience. How much have you lost in horse-racing —£] 00,000 ? I really do not know ; I have no idea. Lord Justice Lopes : We need not go into that. Everybody who has heard this case must see that he has been a very imprudent young man. Witness continued: He was about to bring out a book to show how he got rid of £•250.000 in a short time. He was now twenty-three. Lord Justice Lope's : I hope it will be a benefit to inexperienced young men. On July 10 Mr. Algernon Edward Sydney, the defendant's solicitor, said that he became solicitor to Mr. Benzon some short time after he came of age. He was employed to arrange some liabilities that Mr. j'.jnzon had contracted in Australia. Witness advertised the fact of his being such solicitor in an advertisement for claims in June, ISS7. Mr. Cochrane knew that he had appeared for Mr. Benzon in two matters in which Mr. Cochrane was the plaintiff. He went with Mr. Benzon to Mr. Cochrane'? office in Waterloo Place on July 30, 1888. When he got there lie said, " Mr. Benzon tells, me ho has signed a document, and I wish to see it." The document was handed to him, and he read it through and said, "As I thought, it is a bill of sale." He turned to Mr. Cochrane and said, "Mr. Benzon stated to me that you assured him that this document was not a bill of sale and that it would not be registered." He looked at the back of the bill of sale, and said, " You have been in very great haste to register it, because I see you did it the day after it was signed." Mr. Cochrane did not deny what witness pub to him, but he said in effect that he had got his security, and he meant to keep it. Mr. Cochrane, the plaintiff, was recalled, and he denied what Mr. Sydney had stated as to Mr. Benzon having been told that the document that he signed was not a bill of sale, and would not be registered. Counsel made speeches, and finally Lord Justice Lopes said that he would give judgment in a few days. He said also that he must repeat an opinion which he had already expressed in the course of the arguments, that Mr. Cochrane, knowing the kind of young man that he was dealing with, should not have transacted business with him without there being someone present on his behalf to protect him.