MONEYLENDER'S METHODS.

New Zealand Herald, Volume LI, Issue 15521, 31 January 1914, Page 2 (Supplement)

MONEYLENDER'S METHODS.

TEST CASE IN COURT.

DEALINGS WITH CLERGYMAN

Legal liability of the Rev. Herbert Williams, to return an uninvited and unwanted loan of £50, was put to the test in the Southwark County Court a few weeks ago before Judge Granger.

Plaintiffs were » firm of -lender?, carrying on business as .Marsh (Limited), Leicester, and they sued the reverend gentleman in detinue or alternatively for wrongful conreraion.

The facts of the case, said Mr. Hemmerde. in opening, were very simple. In July the defendant seemed to have received an advertisement from the plaintiffs, and on .July 21st lie wrote to the plaintiffs asking them to quote terms in strict confidence for a private cash advance of £100," adding. " Excellent security ; should like to hear per cent per annum for loan," in the remarks column of the form he received with the advertisement. In reply to that on July 22nd the plaintiffs wrote:— are in receipt of your letter, with thanks, and to enable us to quote your terms shall be obliged if you will kindly let us know the amount of your incomeofficial and private separately— what dates you raeeivo the various items, and by what ir>slalmenU you desire to repay the advance. On receipt of your reply ii: strict confidence we shall be pleased to give the matter our immediate attention, and have no itoubt we will be able to quote you terms v/hich you will find satisfactory and acceptable."

Haviug received no answer to that letter, and being keen in the pursuit of b.isinefs. the plaintiffs on July 28th. wrote, as follows to Mr. Williams:—"We have Leon expecting to hear from you in reply to our previous letter with reference to your application, but in order to save time we beg to enclose for your consideration, bank-notes for £50 in exchange for a promissory note for £65, repayable by leu monthly instalments of £10 10s, or a promi.'iory note for £70, payable by ten monthly instalments of £7. Kindly sign Ibe rote you prefer, and return both by next | ost in the enclosed printed envelope, but if you do not care to accept these terms, please return the bank-notes with the un.igned promissory notes in the registered civelope. We might point out that, although this is our first transaction, we offer yoj the advance without any security or iefe./1-tnces, and without the deduction of any foes or expenses. Without security there <:ai, of course, be no question of rate per rant, and as this is a purely credit business, tarried on under heavy expenses, the charges can only be compared with the profits of any other tradesman on tie sals of hi* g00.'.g."

Defendant received the £50, and for a. time nothing happened except that a very wfil-knwi: newspaper, which was as keen <m business as the plaintiffs were in their legitimate business, published some statement as to the reverend gentleman receiving the money, and describing it as a reprehensible practice.

Two days later the plaintiffs instructed their solicitors to.go to the defendant and get back the £50, which was being kept obviously not for the purposes or a loan, but of advertisement. Mr. Rawson endeavoured personally to secure the return of the money, but the defendant informed him that he could not do anything without the authority *of a newspaper. Of course, added Mr. ilemmerde, it was excellent "cony" for the paper, and the defendant could not as an honourable man spoil it.

Demand lor Honey. On October 28th, nearly three months later. Ins <lienU thought the joke had gone far enough, and they wrote to the defend-" ant offering to send a director either to 'foaley-strcet. (he defendant's hank, or'any 7 other reasonable-place, to collect the notes which were indisputably their property. To' that they received a reply from the defendant that he was glad they proposed calling on him as he "wanted to discuss with them; their business methods in dealing with clergymen, of which he itrongly disapprov- ">, ed, and was endeavouring to persuade them to amend,'' adding :—"I cannot, however, hold out much hope of your talcing the money away with yon. As a matter of fact, it is ino longer in my possession." li, hail been handed over to the newspaper. Mr. Ivor Margolies, one of the directors, calkd en ': the defendant ;in Nov. 4 th", but got no satisfaction whatever. He. made a formal demand for the retojrn of the money, , and the defendant simply Inndcd him .a written statement as foil-* ' ows v—"Jfr.lvrr3fargolie9 attended here on November 4th. between 'th» hours of cue awl two, and made ft*formal application to me to hand to him £50 In £10 notes, which he alleged he, had forwarded to me in July. To his demand I made no reply.'" . " , './ ",'.., On November I2W» ptamtiffs wrote making a formal demand, which was followed by Messrs. Soames, Edwards, and , Jones agreeing to accept service. As a mater of fact, the notes were handed to the editor of the newspaper, with whom they remained ranetime, but he returned them to the defendant, who deposited them at the London County and Westminster Bank, oa deposit account. "I am here now," concluded Mr. Hemmerde, "to demand the return of these notes, and I hfivn't the slightest idea what defence there is to the action." "Sailing Into Slavery." No evidence was called on either side, Mr. J. B Matthews agreeing with the facte a* onened. His client, he said, was, '.-. hi? advice, satisfied that he had no ;• isiver in law to the plaintiff's claim. All *•<: wanted to do was" to ask his honor to v that, in the peculiar circumstances of ;t rase, the judgment which the law re■red should be given to the plaintiffs Mild he without costs. The defendant had ted from the highest possible motives ' •t could animate a clergyman. He had > desire to make profit out of it, nor had '<«. done it,, but it come to his knowledge i hot these people invited clergyman to borrow at cites which were usurious, with results which were disastrous to tlie unhappy people who fell into their clutches. Mr. llemmerdo, in reply, said his clients were not moneylenders, simply sending money broadcast to people who might be in want, but thoy received what wan apcirentlv a brma-lide letter from the defendant, and did what really other traders did—they sent certainly not goods, but mopey mi approval. The defendant had no I«gal right to retain the money, but notvithnUinding hi kept it, and allowed others to nvike advertisement out of it. His Icarncl friend liad absolutely no case for . ?kit)i: his honor to deprive the plantiffs if their costs, but other the plaintiffs had every reason to ask for costs on the higher ■•rale, ii* the defendant had chose.i to make a test case of the action. Great Temptation. His- Honour, in giving judgment, said :— "In tini (.use Mr. Matthews has taken the only course he could do, because there was i lcarlv ro defeicc to the action, and I may say 1 entirely :ympatbise with the defend- . ant in his erection to the methods of the iitrjiieyi"ndois in general. And I also sympathise with the fact that there is a trenwrnlovs traptation to any man when , money is sent in this way without any : : ievnW being arranged, It is almost imposs- • if'h for a matt who is in difficulty to resist flip temptation of -bank-notes, and there- ■ fore so /farafi. that goes I entirely sympathise : with • hi^itvand^nfsi*desire to put it tfown.V' v ß;t{ nfc ihe same. time," I cannot see that i can allow this court to be made the \ clik It? to do; that. >, If there is something wion// in this,' tlie proper authority is the Legislature, who can legislate ■■ and say/: 'This shall not be done.' But I think it is asking too much of me to say I am to deprive plaintiffs of their costs because I sympathise with the defendant in his aims, and think he was actuated by very high motives. I cannot do it. sitting here as a judge administering justice. It would seem to me taking oh. myself something I cxnnot do, and I cannot see any cause for doing it. Therefore I must give judgment for the plaintiffs for £50, with cost* on thai- scam."- 1