LOVE AND LOANS.

New Zealand Mail, Issue 1511, 14 February 1901, Page 18

LOVE AND LOANS.

A TOBACCONIST’S FINANCES.

Byron, whose knowledge of men was deep and comprehensive, has sung that “Love rules the camp, the court, the grove: ” and but for the exigencies of poetic feet and fitness, he would doubtless have added that it occasionally tinctures business transactions. That such is the case was proved before Dr McArthur, S.M., at the Magistrate’s Court on the sth, when Beatrice Tompkins spinster, sued a tobacconist named Percy F. Dawes for £29 on account of money lent. Mr Skerrett appeared for the plaintiff, and informed the Court that his client had been on friendly terms with defendant, and had as a. matter of fact, advanced him, free of interest, the money with which he started in business —a sum of £125. Of the facts of the transaction which formed the basis of the action, Mr Skerrett professed himself to be in a measure uncertain, inasmuch as a firm with which the defendant transacted business had refused to allow plaintiff’s side to obtain certain information material to the case—presumably acting under orders from Dawes, the defendant. What he (Mr Skerrett) understood to be the position, however, was that his client advanced to Dawes a sum of £29 to enable him to liquidate a bill owing to Benjamin and Co. for tobacconists’ goods, withdrawing from the Post Office Savings Bank on August 29th, 1900, the whole of her deposit, amounting to £23, and making it up to £29 with money which she had in hand. She went to Benjamin and Co.’s in Dawes’s company, and there the latter paid the account of £2B which he owed the firm. Miss Thompkins had frequently made demands on defendant for the money, but die had vouchsafed no reply. The plaintiff was then tendered in evidence, and she confirmed the foregoing particulars, adding that plaintiff kept all the change he received from the £29 after paying the account, with the exception of a small sum ho paid for afternoon tea for her. A cross-current then set in across the hitherto unruffled surface of the proceedings. Mr Wilford rose to _cross-ex-amine on behalf of Dawes. Plaintiff admitted that she had been intimately acquainted with Dawes, but denied cnat she had brought two breach-of-promise actions against him —there was only one. She had discontinued it on Dawes promising to pay her £5, but it was nob true she had received that sum. She

signed a receipt for the amount and Mr T. Young witnessed it ; but she was not to receive the money until next morning. Tlie morning came in due course, but the five pounds failed to materialise. £ Mr Wilford then searcliingly questioned plaintiff as to-the £29^ tray^Gt.ion. She said that the which she drew from the bank on August 29tli was that which she gave to Dawes to settle ins account with. Air Wiiford triumphantiy pointed out to the Court that, the account which formed the basis of the action was settled up on the 4th of last July, and that the bank-book of Dawes showed a withdrawal of £2l on.the lastnamed date. Plaintiff asserted then that a mistake must have been made in the dat«.

The defendant was next put in the witness-box He urged that he had paid good interest for the load by settling two brea-ch of promise actions. Mr Skerrett forensically handled him ‘‘with the gloves iff.” Witness admitted that he was accompanied by plaintiff when he weu r to pay the account. She frequently went with him on such occasions. It was on a Wednesday afternoon. He took the balance required (£9) from his till, lb was not curious he should do so on a Wednesday afternoon, for if the shop was closed for the half-holiday he had the keys. He generally kept the shop takings by him for a week. He took the money from tlie cash-box. The casli-box and the till were all the same. He reckoned so, at all events. He paid the account to Benjamin and Co. in August. Had not looked to see if he bad paid one in July; would swear bo had not looked.

A clerk from Benjamin and Co.’s submitted the firm’s books to the Court for inspection. It was then found that on the day mentioned by plaintiff trie defendant had settled an account with Benjamin and Co. (one for £ls 10s). In reply to Mr Skerrett, the defendant (recalled) said it was evident, after all, that he did make a payment on the 29tli August. He couldn’t say whether he went with plaintiff or not. Mr Skerrett: r We!l, it’s evident you didn’t go to the bank that day—for you had no

money ;n it.”

Mr Skerrett then asked the Court for an adjournment of tne case so that defendant might be required to produce bis books for inspection, and thus enable this Court to, if possible, jucige of the cred ibility of defendant’s statements, generally. Counsel also Tntimated that at tho same time he would fender another witness, with a view to corroborating plaintiff’s statement that she had made demands on defendant for payment of he money alleged to be lent. Air Wilford made no objection, and it was resolved to take the hearing in Dr McArthurs official room at 11 a.in. next day.

The case of Beatrice Thompkins against Percy F, Dawes was resumed before Dr AlcArthur, S.M., on tlie 6th instant. The books and accounts of defendant were produced, and Air Skerrett crossexamined him on matters of money and kindred subjects. From the entries in the book counsel established that the gross takings for the period in which the transactions in question were made totalled £SO and that £49 had been paid away.

‘‘How do you account for G.e discrepancy?” asked Air Skerrett: “you told us you took £9 from your till to make up the amount!”—Witness reiterated that he had sometimes £4O to £SO in his shop, and his explanation was that on July 31st he might have been in possession of £4O. Counsel said Dawes’s bank-book showed tolerably regular deposits during June and July. On July 23 he banked £7, on July 30 £9 ss, on August 6 £5 10s, and on August £l3 £7, while on the 20th August he withdrew £29 10s.

Mr Skerrett asked Dawes if it was not a strange thing that he should draw out the money if he had £4O in hand, and went on to inquire why hel made the four deposits indicated above and yet during that period kept in hand £4O.

Witness didn’t kno-w; if he did not bank the money he had it in the shop. In answer to> Mr Wilford, witness said he paid all his accounts regularly. William Lawre/nce Nunn was’ called by the plaintiff to prove that she had sent Dawes a letter, calling upon him to discharge his liability. Nunn said he himself posted the letter, and that Dawee had once admitted to witness that he owed money to plaintiff. In answer to Mr Wilford, Nunn said he was engaged to Miss Thompkins, but that fact affected neither his memory nor his veracity. It was not true that he had invented the story. His word was quite as good as Mr Wilford’s. The plaintiff, recalled,’ said she: had asked Roberts, one of Benjamin and Co.’s bookkeepers, what was the date of the transaction in question which Dawes had with the firm, and the bookkeeper told her the date which she bad specified in her claim. It was because of Roberts’s mistake she had made one.

Mr Skerrett addressed The Bench, pointing out that defendant had failed to satisfactorily account for his capacity to discharge the debt in any other way than by loan from Miss Thompkins, and urged that the balance of the probability was on the plaintiff’s side. To this Mr Wilford replied that the plaintiff and her witness had both lied, and that the present proceedings were a scheme Jjß extort money from his client. Dr McArthur, S.M., reserveo*JHi judgment until next morning.

Judgment m the ea?e of Beatrice Thompkins v. Percy F. Dawe, claim £29, was delivered on the 7th by Dr McArthur, S.M. The plaintiff .was nonsuited, and ordered to pay £2 2s costs to defendant:, The Magistrate delivered a lengthy juujphent, in which he stated his opinion that plaintiff had failed to make out her case. Special stress was laid by the Magistrate upon the failure of plaintiff to prove by her bank-book the assertions .she had made. Mr Milford, counsel for defendant, a.skecl Dr McArthur to keep his notes by him. as it was counsel’s intention to institute a charge of perjury against the witness Nunn.