GUARANTEE TO BANK

Otago Daily Times, Issue 22204, 6 March 1934, Page 8

GUARANTEE TO BANK

ALLEGATION OF FRAUD f COMMERCIAL CASE.7, ) (Pen United Pars# Aaeocunon.) I of an action by Frederick William Moor* | against the Commercial Bank, its mam • nger. E. P. YaldWyn. Athol Pierard,. apd j Sidney John Hamratmd. ’ John L-. Arcus, public accountant, to I whom Moore wgl referied by the manager of the. bank inconnection with the affairs of the Unique' Advertising , Copipapy (now - in. liquidation), whose account Moore guaranteed to the bank‘ fOr 11900, said he “definitely ’ * remembered telling Moore that he- (Withes*)' coaid ho* Advise him. to give the guarantee. At ajkibsequent meeting He had reminded Moore of thatadvk& It ♦as.'vety" definite../. Replying, .to >Mr “O’Uearir (counsel for the ’plaintiff) witness said the 1929bab a nee sheet of‘the company, had 'bteili, reconstructed Under his di hfctlon avltW result of a reoalntion. passed at | , meeting of shareholders, that they werC not satisfied with‘whit 'bad been placed, be - fore them. Wftnese mhe half bees dlssatisfied with the business, all the' time he'' was connected ivrttfc it V:;./; .-!£p ;. > Arena, continuing his evidenoe. mid ho had known Moore prior toMay, 1830, sad had looked nhon .find mi a very cepkble and honourable burinees man. r MrO’Learyi You knew, that Moore soya the only .thing < Of. Jihy -moment thathap 2 - pened at the-interview with you was your saying that not carO to advise one way or the; other,. Did yoUaaythJrtT —No. f t . .-V. ip ■, “ Did .yon tell hup yon .were diaswtisfied with tie company? f—“ I can.kqmk her plainly.;telling him that I wga not aatißbed with themanagernent of m tfin panv.” ’ '■■■", ; Mr O’Leary, then cron-examined 'kjttlijM. oa Stewart Hardy had with him in Septem- . Mr it a facit .Hfirdy ■ took notes of the interview; which he and Moore had with y6u?---l of that until lardy

could hot discus* the pUiitiqa yritt J|#og because he wa»ymjmcvmilig.to beluiHt|S| the bank'.the' of vfbfcNljfc-. ■ A security ; ch»rfc tJia Bank, Henry |v>le|v ehid henad brt* pared 'the were ;*lHmatsty signed .by ( Pi*fard ah# Hesw(4oß«i His instructions... th, Wg, come from the. mshSW- .. .Iw.yrips P®* ■ said he, li*d about September Sr\ j notes: be bad t Arcus. ' Witnjsm ■ wished r to said to him rega^iM^ai. .May, 1030. Arcus. l^bi^b&V#*?*. that when Moore on that- date he had ferred not to adviae: him ojMPjfry other. 1 Witness then reed>'ta.;llior«*«** the notes he hsd^tikSn. The plaintiff- Moore was t^ei,•reeaMed • to answer questions pot. by tbe'^Chiel Honor: When the intended antee (8 per tioned to D»VHM.«hw I had been to see' Y*Wwyn the. first- time. Then, secordiar td:iM> of '"events . to-, you, i but i bbt- then remuneration. Tb«^]y«S wyn, who did npt paention tbs terms- Vo* then saw Arens, wad bffar ,fh*t yoo nSW Davies, wlj'o mentiothid, the for the first time. It ISW Ihe one • year?—ThaA vgaf' You have aim Ybldwyn tom yon -tnis was a prosperous undertaking no rj«k. . Were jon not some, what surprised, then, whei Ddyls* offermi you £370 for doing practically Very surprised. •,, ■: ■ \ . ■■ you.poiood fpjttbougbt?----Üb» What did you do then?—l pafd my second visit to Yaldwyh. ■ What was "your idea about it?-r-I thought 'it very doubtful. When did yojtfirat make, a> dsmand of any. sort on .Pierard .of Hammond? —I learned just recently that a 1 demand, vri* first made in September, 1033 c .-Tfeent them a-letter at the end of IWI. • . Why did you, not'pee these two then?— I placed the matter ip thwhanda-of--ihy sb'icitbr, -.Mr' Thijm.• .•»>; i^cHkc; ■ Did not you, or Mr, Dunn know of .the reason why Pierard . and Hammond said they were not liable?—Noe .... ,• But you did know in 1933?—Yes. ; y . This concluded the *T|d»nc«, .«nB rtfc* examination . of. witnesses. - Counsel then conferred with. his Honor in Chambers, and'it was arranged that4bey dress the court on the fact* bi^lTidiy.