MONEY LENDING

New Zealand Herald, Volume LXX, Issue 21540, 11 July 1933, Page 12

MONEY LENDING

CLAIM AGAINST WOMAN HIGH INTEREST CHARGES NO PROOF OF FRAUD Evidence of money-lending transactions at high rates of interest was given during' the hearing of a. claim before Mr. Justice J'eed in the Supreme Court yesterday. The defendant in the case was a married woman, who, it was stated in evidence, carried on the business of a money-lender. A claim of £207 on promissory n< tes for £lO3 and £lOl and interest was made by Robert Charles Cooke (Mr. Oaten by) against Mrs. Ellen Batt (Mr, Henry). Tho promissory notes were dated June 1 and July 14, 1931. There ivas an alternative claim for the amount on tho ground of alleged fraudulent misrepresentation. '1 ho defence was that the plaintiff was an unregistered money-lender and the transaction was illegal. Fraud was denied. Mr. Gatenby said defendant- did not clisputo that the plaintiff lent her two separate sums of £IOO, but contended that as she then promised to pay him interest at a rate groater than 10 per cent and as tho plaintiff was not a registered money-lender, she was under no legal liability to repay what she had been given. Defendant was a registered money-lender. Mr. Henry: Plaintiff has to prove that.

Mr. Oaten by said j/lahitiff siUop;oil that the defendant had got tho first £IOO from hirn by misrepresenting tho position of her business and tho second by falsely representing that sho required it for a police official. " Never had a Loss " The plaintiff said ho was retired. In May, 1931. ho met tho defendant, who told him sho had a very profitable money-lending business, but required more capital to make more money.hho said she had never had a loss. Being a woman, people always paid her. !>ho offored him two-thirds of the profits on the money he lent lior, keeping onethird for herself. Wheii he lent her <-200 he received in return a stamped receipt produced, which stated that £IOO of tho money was to bo lent out in small sums, the interest to bo not less than £3 for every £lO, tho time to bo not more than three months; tho other £IOO to be lent for a period of six months, interest to be £3O for that period. , Witness said ho received two promissory notes, as" well as the receipt. Mrs. Batt said she coukl easily give him £3O for £IOO for six months, as she would probably double that herself by lending in small amounts. From Juno 1 to July 14 lie must have placed about £6OO in Mrs. Batt's hands on the terms that he was to get two-thirds of the profits. Early in July Mrs. Batt approached him for £IOO for a friend who was stated to be a high police official. Witness wanted an endorsement, but she gave him an order over her furniture as A further guarantee of her note of £l2O due in six months.

Further Transactions Witness said he continued to place money in Mrs. Batt's hands, and for three' months all his money was repaid with interest. In September lie notihecl Mrs. Batt that ho was withdrawing' from her business. Ho found ho was . being repaid with his own mone>. Ho i had lent her £126.0 altogether, and about £IOOO was owing liini. Ho had had to sue the defendant for £o9 for money invested with her, and got judgment* for £49. In a letter to him sho stated she "had worked hard for tho last fortnight on the professor," and Knid "Your wife knew I should not have lent the professor so much." AY hen witness found the promissory note for £l2O could not bo paid ho agreed to accept another promissory note for £lO3 Jh place of it. Sho expressed gratitude thrtt lie had done this. 11l cross-exaiiiination the plaintiff said he was 41 years of age and had had experience managing stores. His Honor said the onus was on Mr. Henry to show that at tho time Cooke made* these loans to Mrs. Batt ho was a money-lender. Plaintiff admitted a largo number of loans made by him as recorded in his books. Theso included one to Professor Grossman of £IOO, at £25 interest for three months, another to him of £IOO for one month at £24, and a third loall of £IOO made direct to Professor Grossman with interest at £2O for one Wohth. it was his practice to hold tho promissory notes of his clients to whom lie lent money. Ho had his licence as a moneV-lender takell out early in October, 1931. Mrs. Batt then endorsed all the promissory notes as payable to him so that lie could collect. He found aftertvflfds that "tlfe police official" of whom Mrs.. Batt spoko was really a moneyleader.

Business Dealings A manufacturer, Walter Patterson, said he had business dealings with Mrs. Jjatt for afyout three and a-half years. He was a. registered money-lender, and lout money to her to lend on his account. He had had to take proceedings against her in the Magistrates Court for repayment. John William Ynrhnll, solicitor, gave evidence that he had been instructed by the previous witness Patterson to collect a debt of £35 from Mrs. J3att He had tho greatest difficulty, Sho said jb was no use taking out a summons as sho had nothing. Finally ho was Arthur Albert Dunn, said Mrs. Bfttt had borrowed £23" 10s from him 111 April, 1931, to be repaid at the rate of £1 a week. Ho had to put tho last £4 or £5 into tho hands of collectors. A former newspaper clerk, 1' rank Inwood Graham, said lie had tried to collect money for advertising-from Mrs. Uatt early in 1931. Ho also borrowed £lO from her, half for himself and half for hcr~ When ho had repaid £0 and interest he was given receipts for £lO oriel interest. Evidence that between January and June, 1931j .be entrusted £230 to Mrs. IJatt Was given by Georgo Ball, warehouseman Ho estimated th^fc Mrs. liatt liow oWed him just over £UOO.

I'Ved Thomas, registered finnnci.il tigotit, said lie had lent Mrs. Batt rntmoy, beginning in February, 1927. He had had gloat difficulty in yetting repayment of a lon 11 of £ll 10* made to her in May, 19'il. His Honor said the pinintilF had to prove fraud, as if Mrs. Batt had ap % peared on a, criminal charge of fraud. He tlid not think the evidcnco had been Sufficient to establish fraud. After the lesrnl position had been argued, His Honor found that the plaintiff was not a money-lender 011 June 1, 19.3], but that ho was a moneylender 011 .July 14, 1931. It had not been proved that there had been fraudulent misrepresentation. Judgment would be for plaintiff for £lOl, the amount lent on June 1, and costs.