VULTURES.

NZ Truth, Issue 198, 3 April 1909, Page 5

VULTURES.

THE RAPACIOUS RAPHAELS. The Estate Of Sam F. Tait. More Money-lending Transactions at Christchurch.

When sundry financial vultures m Christchurch got Samuel Fullerton Tait's estate m Gebbie's Valley into their capacious maws they devoured a considerable portion of its money value before it was sojd to Tommy Taylor to satisfy their demands. Efforts are bemg made to maUe th6m disgorge, and Huston Curlett, fighting horribly, hai already been compelled to render up \ some portion of the spoil. Next Lawyer • Leathern tackled money-lender F. C. Raphael, who lent £50 to Tait on January 2-J, 1907, taking as security a promissory note and a mortgage over the farm, of the total value,, of £1521. Tait clr lined that he had been charged interest at the rate of 120 per" cent., which was harsh and unconscionable, and his claim for a refund of £18 6s Bd. .Giving evidence, Tait said that when he borrowed the £50 for two months, his farm was valued at £1935, and had since been sold, for £27,71. Raphael charged him £10 interest for two months use of the £50, and Tait paid it BY SELLING SOME OF HIS SHEEP. At the expiration of two months the bill was renewed for another three months, when the property was sold and Raphael was paid £60, or £70 m all. Mr Harper : You paid £20 on the £50 m five months ?— Yes. . ' .., : That works out at 80 per cent., per annum ? • .-■..■..*.. -,-...■ - f • Magistrate Bishop '.' Good interest, too. Tait, ia further cross-examination, said that .he told Raphael that his farm was mortgaged to Stevens, and Harman for £1250, -. but Raphael : didn't offer to charge £5 only for the first two months if the mortgage was registered. Tait believed he. told Raphael that Pyne and Co. had a second* mortgage over , the property, which was sold privately by himself m July, although it -was then offered for sale by the Registrar to satisfy an order of the Court' to pay 10s a week towards the support of Tait's missus. ' ■"-' Solicitor Cresswell,. who appeared for . Tait m the transaction with Curlett, and fdr Curlett subsequently m Tait's action against the elderly money-lender, stated that the property realised £2771 in' June, when there was a first mortgage of £1250 and a second mortgage of £259 to 'Pyne and Co., also the 10s per Week, to the ' missus ' was wiped out by the purchase of an annuity for £327. ■. Raphael's original claim was £64 16s, but Raphael Bros, were induced to forego £4 16s, which represented the costs of Raphael's brother, who is a solicitor, and partner m the money-lending firm. F. C. • Raphael stated that Tait told, him that there was only one mortgage' on the property, that 1 of Harman and Stevens, and the money-lender knew of no other monkey. His charge for £50 for two months was. £s, but Tait offered him £10 if he consented not to register the mortgag*. ; '■"'/ RAPHAEL DECIDED :TO TAKE THE ! ■ , ■ ."- ... R.tek, ••;■ ; , I the £10 was paid and the bill was re- ' newed for another three months. Afterwards, the per-cent. gentleman heard that Tait had registered a bill of sale with Pyne and Co., and when he" saw the property .advertised for Sale by the Registrar m - June he hastened to secure him- ■ self by registering his little transaction also. . ' ■ ■..••.-; * . As Raphael was charging £10. on the understanding that the bill should not be registered, Mr Leathern asked the witness why he didn't hand back what he Wasn't entitled: to when he did register.'" '• ■■"•'■■• • • Raphael replied that unfortunately he didn't see Tait afterwards. Solicitor H. J. Raphael corroborated his : brother's testimony. .He heard Tait ! ask his- brother not to register. the mortgage and' the offer of £10 for two months m payment for that concession. The money-lending brothers didn't attempt to find out what encumbrances were on the' property. Mr Leathern : You are m partnership with your brother and you are his solicitor ?— Certainly. Didn't you search the records of the Supreme Court ?— No. '-.. • ■■'-■. ■ Why didn't you ?— Because I was forbidden by Mr Tai.t to. do so. Magistrate Bishop: Do you want me to believe, Mr Raphael, that you conduct a money-lending ' business on those lines? — -I ' repeat that we never made tho slightest inquiry/ ■ . N •His Worship : You surely .cannot expect me to believe that. Mr Leathern :■ Did you ring up Harman and Stevens ? — No.' . : Why. didn't you do so ?— That is my business. The witness, m reply to further questioning, said that the sum of £4 Ids; charged, and which the firm didn't get, represented Solicitor Raphael's costs for preparing the agreement. "I gave them up," he said. . Mr Leathern : You know as a matter of law that you, as a paYtner, cannot claim costs? — I don't know that it is the law. ■> Mr Harper submitted that a firm could lend money without making inquiries. His Worship said, certainly, but they ran the risk that the Court might reopen the transaction under the. new Act. Counsel pointed out that it was a particular fcatgain by, which an existing mortgage- Was kept safloat, and it was merely a question of risk. His Worship "didn't call on Mr Leathern to reply. In delivering judgment, he was not going to say anything reflecting upon Raphael's ■ METHOD OF CONDUCTING HIS BUSINESS, which was carried on as equitably as such businesses could be carried on, and as fairly and ag honorably as other businesses of its kind m - Christchurch. Tait had asked him to re-open the case and to hold the transaction harsh and unconscionable, and his Worship would have to do so as a condition precedent to reopening it. In giving judgment for £5 and costs, iiis Worship pointed out that cne aspect of ; the agreement had not been carried out by Raphael. He referred to the provisio • for non-registrar tion of the agreement, the mortgage having been subsequently registered \by defendant.