JEW JEWELLERS.

NZ Truth, Issue 108, 13 July 1907, Page 6

JEW JEWELLERS.

A CASE OF UNPARALLELED RAPACITY AND USURY.

£74 16s 6d for Eighteen Weeks' Hire of a Ring.

One of the most astounding cases of Christian usury and rapacity occurred recently, when a Wellington [ man was legally victimised by a Christchurch firm of jewellers. The facts are that F. Webb, herbalist, of 23 Ghuznee-street, purchased a diamond ring from F. T. Pannell. and Co., of Christchurch, for £94. He gave a cheque for £25, and contracted to pay ili-3 balance at the rate of £10 per month. If the amount were paid within ten months he was to get the ring for £82. Webb was unable to keep up the payments and fell into arrears to the extent of 4£ months. Pannell and Co. then sued him for £-15 for the "hire" of the ring for that period, m addition to the £25 already paid. This was a tough proposition, but Webb very foolishly failed to go to Christchurch to defend the case, and judgment was given for the cormorant firm on May 9, for £48 5s 6d, the sum including costs of court, etc. No time was given to pay up, but on the very same day that judgment was given a' •judgment summons was taken out agaihst the herbalist. This course seems to be legal, with the permission of the court, but m the circumstances it was a most objectionable and tyrannous one. The amount claimed carried with it the costs oi t-ho first hearing, and totalled £46 6-s Cd, ond the case was to have been heard at Christchurch on May 23. Meantime (on May 13) Web'b returned the ring. On May 23, for some reason, Pannell and Co. failed to appear, and the case was struck out. THE INSATIABLE JEWELLERS up to this time had received £25 and the ring, 'but they wanted more, and they took out another judgment summons, tha claim having risen, with costs, to £49 16s Gd. Costs are like a huge snowball, which gets, larger ] as it rolls. In other words, Pannell and Co. wanted (with the £25 already paid) £70 for the use of a ring (which had been returned) for eighteen weeks, or. with court costs £74 16s 6d. As Wofrb had ths opportunity oi buying the ring for £82, and bad already "dons m" "£25 for nothing, one can only stand off and gape m astonishment at the unconscionable cheek of the' Christchurch birds of prey. " , The second judgment summons case came before Dr. McArthur, S.M., at Wellington, on Thursday, when solicitor Jackson, for ihe defence, wished to explain the. above .facts. The Bench would not permit him to re^open a case judgment m which had already been given. Mr Toogood, for Pannell and Co., said he would give the • facts and proceeded to do so. His Worship : Do you mean to tell me the ring has been re"turned>, and defendant has lost £25 on it ?— That. [is so, your Worship. His Worship : Pannell is lucky to q>ot the ring back and £25 with it. I am not going to make an order against Ihis man. Mr Toogocd explained that the ring was not returned until these proceedings had been taken. He went on to . make further explanations, but the S.M. would not hear him. "I will not make an order," he said with decision, and Webb stood down from tho -witness-box.