IS SEARL A SWINDLER ?

NZ Truth, Issue 168, 5 September 1908, Page 6

IS SEARL A SWINDLER ?

WELLINGTON'S CHAMPION BANKRUPT AGAIN. Did He Try to Cheat His Chef? Magistrate McArthur's Verdict Says He Did.

The name ol J. Searl has been very . prominent in' Wellington law courts for years past, and the frequency with whicb Searl has appeared either as plaintiff or defendant has caused more than one m" nocent individual to simply express the opinion that Searl Is an unfortunate per-, son. The fact, however, is altogether too apparent that Searl is not a hard done by person at, all. In reality, it is those, who have had any business dealings with this sharp lellow that deserved to be described as unfortunate, be* cause it seems safe to say that few m Wellington can affirm that m any business transaction with Searl have wiey got the best of him, unless they forced the sharper into the Bankruptcy Court ' or got some sort of consolation out of a Verdict m the Magistrate's Court. Searl, "Truth* 1 hastens to : remark, tor purposes of identification, is /the . individual just now running some, , sort of a haehrhouse m Willis-street.:, '" He has been running hash-houses all Bis life, more or less, and m the end he made a hash of them all. 1 This man Searl, "Truth" does not now hesitate to denounce as an oilyj smopdgihg, <■ \ -■■■' - HUMBUGGING, SWINDLING SHARPER. - He is a rogue and a take-down. . We have before accused him of sweating,' and that accusation is hereby repeated. He takes down everybody that he can, he pays nobody, and that the man can, m Wellington, obtain a penny credit, is to "Truth" astounding. He has almost ruined, financially speaking, his late partner, Lyons, who! joined him m an eatinghouse venture m Willis-street, and which ended m a_ big b ; urst-up, and at a mee£ ing of Searl 's creditors some dirty, disclosures . were made concerning that skunk-like person, who, without a doubt, is Wellington's champion' bankrupt. Searl 's name stinks m the city for the rogue that he is. He is unprincipled and without scruple, and if "Truth?" de-i sired, .and had it- the space to w.aste on suph a worthless wretch, it could" fill columns with the accounts of his dirty transactions. However, SEARL CAME /TO GRIEF m the Magistrate's Court the other day when a claim was made by Leo Be. j Laval, from Searl, lot £9, being bal- . ance of' wages due. Mr Toogobd appeared for De Laval and Mr Dunn appeared for Searl. Dr. McArthur, S.M:, before whom the ease' was heard; reserved his judgment after hearing the evidence, and that reserved judgment was delivered on Thursday last. The judgment fully sets forth the facts of the case, and, therefore, obviates any necessity of "Truth" going into details. In his judgment the Magistrate said: —

The plaintiH claims to recover the sum ol £9, 'being the balance of wajges due .to toe plaintiff for work done as cook m the employ of' the defendant from the Veek, as per particulars hereunder written : 21st June to 21st July, four weeks and three days at £3 5s per >Veek,, £14 Bs. Less amount paid on account, £5 .8». ibalance due, £9. This is a most remarkable case, and plaintiff claims as above, and said that on July 22nd he went to get the amounts due to him, wiffih he claimed as £9 Cs. His' description of the interview is as follows : "I said I wanted to gl^t a way to Auckland by the mid-day 'boa^;." He said, "All right; I'll pay you. He said, -"Yo.u ? .yjs been here four weeks and three days." I said, "Yes." He told me "There is £2 12s you received from me and £2 last Friday, and 10s from George on Monday-~£s 25." He said, . !'ls that correct.'^ I said, "Yes." He said, "There is £9 6s due to you. Is that correct .?'■' I said, "Yes.'-' He put his hand m his inside pocket to pull a pocket-book put. He took out something that appeared like bank notes. He said; "I'm going downstairs for a minute or two. I'll come back soon. He came back with the pocket-book m. his hand. He had Cs'in his hand, which, he put on the table. He : took the pay book , and put it m front of me and said, "Sign your name on it and I'll pay you." I was looking at the book. I said, "I'll have to put five signatures on the book.'-' I said "Why dqnft you put four week's and three day's, and I'll have only to put one." "-■ He said / "IT'S 'AIA RIGHT, AIN'T IT?"

1 said, "Yes. 1 ? He. said, "Well, sign your name if you want to get away and I'll pay you. He was counting the money then, notes and silver. I signed my name m the book. I ' barely had time to put the pen down before Mr Searl caught hojd of the book. He blotted my signatures and Avalked across the room to -the desk and locked the book up and he < came back and stood m front of . me. He said, ".Now, chef, I've got you." He said, "You've signed your name on .the book, I won't give you any money." I said, HWhat. do you mean?" He said, "That means you are paid.?' I said, "Do you mean to say that you will do me out of my mpney, that I haye honestly earned?" He said, "I mean it." I was getting up to go away. I noticed the 6s on the table. I said 4o him, "Will you mind giving me the silver ?" There was no one else present. He. never saidi a word. He picked up the silver and handed it to. me. That is the -plaintiff's statement. Defendant's^Statement of the same occurrence is, "De Laval came vp — I can't say when he came. I should say about 10 or 12. He was upstairs about ten minutes. I paid him (£1 8s). I left him twice to get change. 'I gave him a sovereign and mixed silver. He signed his.name once and I blotted it. De Laval was satisfied with his payment. He' left." THERE IS HERB POSITIVE PERJURY an one side or the; other. ' There is no escape from it. Plaintiff swears he never left . the . premises but met .a. Mr Whitelaw, who called m a constable. The latter searched the plaintiff- and the only money found {on him was 6s. Mr Whitelaw said the signatures m the book appeared to him to be fresh. The con- . stable said "The five signatures were ail' fresh ink marks. lam certain they were fresh. ... I searched the blotting paper. I saw the five signatures on the corner. They were not distinct. There was a £1 Bs, not the one there now. I can't; see the five signatures. There is a piece torn off." Mr Reade's evidence does not touch the question at all, although from Mr Dunn?s opening I was led to suppose that be could testify that the plaintiff had told him that the defendant had paid him his wages regularly. Neither does the evidence of Miss Williams, George Searl, or Frederick Searl, the last two being sons of the defendant, help me at all. Percy Searl, another son of defendant, said, "On two days before De' Laval left, 1 saw him signing the wages book m the shop. This was the 20th. All the other, signatures were there when he signed. The I£l 8s was not entered at all. The last statement does not agree with the defendant's evidence. He said, "I had made up the book, knowing he was to leave, and 1 anticipated paying him the week and tlireo daj's atone time, biut on the aptli he drew 10s. from my son, and on the same morning ,he wanted more money, so I paid him the halance of the week'; ana got Us signature." To sum, up. there is the story ot the two principals DIRECTLY OPPOSED TO EACH .-■.,-.• OTHER. In favor of the '.-plaintiff there is the fact 'that his account was told m a straightforward manner, and the figures he gives tally exactly with the records kept m a book by him, which he said he kept from day to day. He is searched almost immediately, at anyrate he h«tg not left the premises, and, «»ly. fc is found on. tujaa.

There is the evidence of the two independent witnesses who state that the signatures appeared fresh, and the fact that something had been torn off the blotter. For the defendant there is his statement and that of his son. Percy. But the.-lat-ter's statement must be discounted", as he does not agree with his father as to the £1 8s being on the book on the 20th, I have most carefully examined the boots and as far as wages are concerned, they show them as being paid regularly on the due date, although it is admitted that what were called advances were some-: times made. They do not help me. The two last entries were dated on the 22nd July^jfche date of the occurrence. Defendant ■•lays- foe only owed plaintiff £1 8s on that date. The entries were evidently, on. examination, made at one and the same time, and this would show, it they, were written on the 22nd, thai! the delendant owed plaintiff £3 5s m addition, to '-the £l Bs. The defendant's explanation is that lie wrote both entries on the 22nd because he knew plaintiff was going •to leave. Here by his own showing the dates, are not correct. I have most CAREFtJLLY EXAMINED THE SIGNATURES .again and again, and to me they present the appearance of having Treen written at the same time. In my opinion the wages, were due to the defendant and he only received 6s of them. Judgment for plaintiff with costs £3 ss.