MRS TANFIELD’S AFFAIRS

Otago Daily Times, Issue 23690, 23 December 1938, Page 15

MRS TANFIELD’S AFFAIRS

WINNINGS AT CHEMIN DE PER SYSTEM “DID NOT LOSE” QUESTIONS ABOUT JEWELLERY (From Our Own Correspondent) (By Air Mail) LONDON, Nov. 17. A vow that she would set right all her money tangles and “ straighten out ” her life was made by Mrs Madeleine Tanfield, ex-Follies girl and wife of the gaoled share-pusher, after her two-hour examination in the London Bankruptcy Court by the registrar. Questioned about her gambling activities, she said that she had a system at chemin de fer, and constantly won. Since January, 1937. her winnings were £ 1500. During a long examination she was warned by the registrar for the manner in which she answered questions. “You should show a little more restraint,” he said. Later, Mrs Tanfield wept. She stated that detectives were “ chasing her,” and, she cashed a banker’s draft for £2700 in £1 notes, “to give them something to think about” The examination was concluded. Mrs Tanfield was examined by Mr C. Bruce Park, the official receiver, and she said she had been ill She was allowed to be seated.

Her marriage to Stanley William Tanfield, she said, took place in New York in 1926 Before that she was dependent on her parents and money she earned as an actress. Her husband never gave her a fixed allowance, and he always paid the outgoings They came to England in 1926. Mr Bruce Park: Did you know the nature of your husband’s business? Mrs Tanfield: No. I never troubled o ask him. Did vou ever discuss it with him? -No. HUSBAND MADE BANKRUPT Were you aware your husband was made bankrupt in this court in .929?—Yes. Mrs Tanfield added that she had no idea how much he owed. She knew he obtained his discharge from the case. “He told me about it. but I have forgotten,” she said. In 1932 she acquired the lease of Orkney Cottage, Taplow—now known as White Place. She paid nothing for the lease. The rent was about £2OO a year. Before that she had only temporary residences in this country, though she had a flat in Grosvenor square, W., for some months Her husband provided for the upkeep of White Place.

Mr Bruce Park; Why did you become owner of White Place?—Because I wanted to become owner.

Was it because your husband was an' undischarged bankrupt?—Nothing of the kind. Was that never discussed with your husband?—No. Speaking of the work of mod nising White Place, Mrs Tanfield said she estimated the cost at £o(J00 or £7OOO. She guessed that was about the figure A large garage to hold four cars was built Her husband' paid for the whole. In 1933 the freehold was bought for £5500. That was arranged by her husband To pay for it £7500 was raised by mortgage on the property. SIGNED CHEQUES IN BLANK Mx-s Tanfield agreed that she had signed cheques in blanks at her husband’s request. Mr Bruce Park: How many at a time?—Fifty or sixty at a time, frequently.

Is it true you never had the passbooks in vour possession?—Definitely. Mrs Tanfield wa o then asked about her gambling activities. She agreed that her account showed that she had won £ISOO since January, 1937 “I wanted a banking account of my own,” she added, “ and another account was opened.” Did you bank your winnings?— Sometimes. I had a system at chemin de fer I consistently won. I did not lose.

How long after your husband’s arrest did you learn of the liabilities in your statement of affair:?—About two or three days. Is it a fact that you merely signed any documents your husband put before you?—Exactly Mrs Tanfield agreed that Mr Max Gerson was shown as a creditor for £3OO in her statement of affa : s.

How did he come into this?—My husband approached him to find a purchaser for White Place I have known him about 10 years. And he found a purchaser?—Yes.

Did you want to dispose of the property without the creditors becoming aware of it? —No, Did you ever discuss the possibility of that with your husband?— No. Mrs Tanfield said that Mi Abraham Kacher was the purchaser of White Place She did not remember exactly who fixed the price. It is an important detail?—lt is. isn’t it?

There was a valuation of the property at £IO,OOO, Mrs Tanfield added. She could not remember who made the valuation. After payment of the mortgage she received £2700 by banker’s draft, which was cashed at a bank in Lombard street in £1 notes REGISTRAR’S REBUKE

Why did you take it in £1 notes? —That is rather a long story Have you the patience to hear it? Mr Registrar Parton. You should show a little more restraint. You are not impressing me as a witness. You appear to be enjoying yourself Mrs Tanfield: I am not.

Mr Bruce Park: Why did you draw the money in £1 notes? —I found that detectives were chasing me, and on the previous day they were slow at the bank in cashing the cheque. I had made arrangements to go to France.

When I went to the bank the next morning they kept me a long time. I was highly annoyed, and said 1 wanted it in £ 1 notes

Why should the fact that detectives were following you make you want to draw it in £ 1 notes?—l just wanted to give them something to think about. It was not done so that their disposal could not be traced in any way?—lndeed not. Were the proceeds handed over to your husband?—l retained about £l5O or £2oo—enough to take myself to France.

After you handed over the money to your husband, what did you think was going to happen to the creditors?—l naturally looked to him to pay them Questioned about an affidavit she swore asking for time to pay a debt, Mrs Tanfield said, “ I asked for time to pay so that my husband could win his case and get on his feet again.”

She was next asked if she had any other money or property when she went to France on April 4. Mrs Tanfield replied that she had some jewellery. “ Why did you go away?” asked Mr Bruce Park. She replied, “ I wanted to take my children away from everything. It was close to my husband’s trial.” Mr W. A. L. Raeburn, for the trustee, questioned Mrs Tanfield about jewellery she was said to have given away. She answered, “It cost £1166, and not £11,660.” She gave her sister a bracelet worth £SOO or £6OO about two years ago. It was a diamond bracelet. What was the special reason you gave it to her?—To console her for breaking her collar-bone. To another sister, Mrs Tanfield said she gave a diamond ring. That was at Christmas about three years ago when she was in America. Mr Raeburn; You know that there is about £ 10,000 to be accounted for since January last year; what has happened to it?

“ I don’t know,” replied Mrs Tanfield in a rather loud voice. The registrar warned her not to answer in that manner. “ I may think you are not accounting for your assests,” he said. “ and it may be I shall have to adjourn your examination sine die.” Mrs Tanfield than agreed that in January, 1937, her assets were valued at £21,975. Mr Raeburn: Is it right that that included jewellery worth £ 10,000? —Yes. MRS TANFIELD’S TEARS

After further questioning, Mrs Tanfield wept. She declared, “ When my husband was arrested I returned every single thing I had to him. I think he raised money on it. Some was oawned.”

Mr I. Jacob, for Mr Gerson, referred Mrs Tanfield to the sale of White Place, and she agreed that Mr Gerson was to receive a commission.

Mr Jacob: Is it true that the sale of the house and contents was a fraudulent sale?—Oh, no. Was the sale of the contents fraudulent?—No, no. Mrs Tanfield said she believed that Mr Gerson told her husband that he wanted to be paid part of a debt owing to him from the proceeds of the sale. She did not know if the sum paid was £ 1500. Mrs Tanfield, whose statement of affairs showed liabilities of £11.564 and assets of £927, gave an undertaking to supply the trustee with a list of jewellerv disposed of over the value of £IOO.