MANAGER'S THEFT

New Zealand Herald, Volume LXXV, Issue 23036, 13 May 1938, Page 12

MANAGER'S THEFT

mmows claim fails INSURANCE SOCIETY SUED JUDGE ENTERS NONSUIT PALMERSTON NORTH CASE [BY TELEGRAPH—OWN. CORRESPONDENT) ' PALMERSTON NORTH, Thursday There was an unusual basis to a claim which was the subject of litigation in the Supremo Court to-day. Tho plaintiff was Miss Grace Berry, matron of tho Pahiatua Hospital, who sued the Australian Mutual Provident Insurance Society for £3OO. In outlining the plaintiff's case, Mr. McGregor said that Miss Berry was suing the society for £3OO and interest oil that sum because sho claimed that she had lent it to the defendants for investment. In May, 1935, there came due in her favour an endowment policy which had been in force for 14 years. The district manager for the company at that time was Godfrey Halse aud when the policy matured she was asked to go to Palmerston North to see him. Halse suggested at the interview that the society should invest the money for her at 7 per cent interest. Halse also suggested that sho should tako out another endowment policy for a period of five years. In all £316 was due to her, so she applied the odd £l6 toward the first premium of a new endowment policy, which amounted to £2O odd. She also agreed to leave £3OO with the society as suggested by Halse, being told that if unable at any time to pay the premium on the new policy the interest on the £3OO could be used for that purpose. Documents Signed Continuing, counsel said Halse asked plaintiff to sign documents and sho endorsed the cheque for £316. That •was the only time she handled it. She left the office and later forwarded the balance of the premium duo on the new policy. From then on until early in August, 1937, she had no further dealings with the society, except that she - paid the annual premiums on the new policy from her earnings and had no need to draw on the interest on the £3OO left with the society. Subsequently plaintiff was informed that Halse had stolen her money, along with other moneys. It was then that she informed the society she must hold it responsible, as she had' dealt with Halse as manager. She did not know him personally. Mr. McGregor then referred to the defence raised by the society, which fell under two headings—that at no time had they received £3OO from the plaintiff, nor any other sum, and that Halse, as manager of the company in Palmerston North, had no authority from the society to receive any moneys from her. The question to be decided, therefore, was whether Halse received the money acting, o'r professing to act. on behalf of the society Plaintiff's Beliel Plaintiff said she got no receipt when ■he handed Halse the cheque for £316, but hardly expected one. However, sho had signed four documents placed bey fore her by Halse without reading them. One was a receipt acknowledging ihaYing^received £316 from the society. Counsel: Having given the society a receipt, did r you not expect one from .them when you handed it back ? " Witness: I was not sure of the internal workings of the society. Didn't Halse give you his own personal receipt?—He did not • Plaintiff denied that Halse had said he was able to arrange loans which the society - could not advance owing to the amounts being too small. There was no discussion as to the nature of the investment Halse had in mind. She thought "the society would use the £3OO iust . WXit used premiums paid in by policy-holders jas a sorV.of bank. This was the only evidence produced for the plaintiff. , . , Mr. H. J. V. James, for the defendant society, submitted argument for a nonsuit, which His Honor allowed. Brieflv the decision -was that if there was any action there was a claim for a breach.of trust, which must be brought before & Jfu'liTP