A BAREFACED FRAUD

New Zealand Times, Volume XXX, Issue 6627, 29 September 1908, Page 6

A BAREFACED FRAUD

MYSTERY OF A LOADS'. THE BTTUGES-GOODMAN PRACTICE. PRESS ASSOCIATION. CHRISTCHURCH, September 28. Huston Curlctt, a registered moneylender, .appeared in person before Mrl H. W. Bishop, S.M., to-day to sue forj the recovery of £220 from Maryi Suiter, being money alleged to havoj been lent to defendant and interest thereon. Plaintiff stated that on April 12th, 1002, Bruges, ■ a solicitor, obtained; £220 from him to lend to defendantfor one- month, and a few days later he received* back £22. The Magistrate: This case is similar to the one in which Mr Cresswellj appeared for you some time ago, when; tho whole case turned on the privity!, of defendant. 1 Plaintiff: No. This is a different case. ‘ „

Tho Magistrate: Well, what lias Mis Suiter got to do with tho case? Plaintiff: I will show you if you will give mo time. All I want is an oppor-. tunity and justice. , The Magistrate: Who is denying you! justice? I won’t allow you to come hero and bo impertinent. I have an unblemished record of twenty-sevenj years, and I don’t allow a man like; you to imply anything against my ( character. If you force my. hand I 1 will deal with yon so drastically, that you will remember it nil your life. Now.go on with your case. Plaintiff after apologising said hewanted to show where tho money had gone. He thou commenced to make some rather serious allegations against Christchurch lega\ practitioners. The Magistrate: Yon are not going to make this claso a vehicle for casting a. lot of mud at loading members of tho legal profession. If what you say is true von have your remedy. Plaintiff produced the following receipts:—“April 12th—Koceivcd from H. Curlett £220 being a loan to Mrs, Suiter on transfer of security.” “April 14th, 1902—Kcccived from H. Bruges £5 on account of loan to Mrs Suiter.” He said that tho £2211 was lent on security supposed to liave been deposited with Bruges by a Mr Lawrence on behalf of Mrs Suitor, and out of the £5 ho received £1 was paid for the transfer of that security. He had never seen principal nor in-

terest since though hit chei-pio for £220 had been cashed. He never saw Airs Suiter about the loan at -.1! and never received any communication from her.

Elizabeth Ann Curlctt said that about, June, 1902, she was with the plaintiff in Bruges’ office. She was ■.here: to see Bruges in regard to some money she had lent. Curlctt asked Bruges about Mrs Suiter's security. Tim money, Curlctt said, had only been lent for a short period and he had nut received the .security. Bruges said Goodman knew something about it and lie (Bruges) would sec it wa.s attended to.

In reply to a question by the Mag istrate, plaintiff said ho had not laid a criminal information against either Bruges or Goodman. He wanted to prove the case in a Civil Court. Alary Suiter said she never authorised Bruges to bin row £220 on her behalf. She had lent money through Bruges. Air Ollivior had sent for her to come and prove as a creditor. She never had a shilling of this money and did not know Curlctt. She got practically tho whole of her money and interest back. The, Magistrate: Tho whole tiling is a fraud—a bare-facod fraud. Airs Suitor is not to blame. It is a flagrant and disgraceful fraud on someone's part and plaintiff ought to prosecute {ho parly responsible! Plaintiff nonsuited.