CLAIM AGAINST BANK

Taranaki Daily News, 6 March 1934, Page 7

CLAIM AGAINST BANK

ALLEGATIONS OF FRAUD GUARANTEEING OF ACCOUNT CONCLUSION OF EVIDENCE COUNSEL TO ADDRESS COURT By Telegraph—Press Association. Wellington, Last Night. To-day is the fifth day of the hearing of the action by Frederick William Moore against the Commercial Bank, its manager, E. P. Yaldwyn, Athol Pierard and Sidney John Hammond. John L. Arcus, public accountant, to whom Moore was referred by the manager of the bank in connection with the affairs of the Unique ’Advertising Company (now in liquidation), whose account Moore guaranteed to the bank for £l5OO, said he definitely remembered telling Moore he (witness) qould not advise him to give a guarantee. At a subsequent meeting he had reminded Moore of that advice. It was very definite. Replying to Mr. O’Leary, counsel for Moore, witness said the 1929 balancesheet of the company had been reconstructed under his direction as the result of a resolution passed at a meeting of shareholders that they were not satisfied with what had been placed before them. Witness said he had been dissatisfied with the business all the time he was connected with it. Arcus said he had known Moore prior to May, 1930, and had looked upon him as a very capable, honourable business man.

Mr. O’Leary: You know that Moore says the only thing that happened at the interview with you of any moment was your saying that you did not care to advise one way or the other. Do you say that? Arcus: No!

Did you tell him you were dissatisfied with the company?—l can remember plainly telling him that I was not satisfied with the management of the company. Mr. O’Leary then cross-examined Arcus on the interview Moore and Stewart Hardy had with him. in September, 1933.

Mr. O’Leary: Is it a fact that Hardy took notes of the interview which he and Moore had with you?—l was not aware of that until Hardy told me the other day. Arcus denied he had said he could not discuss the position with Moore because he was supervising on behalf of the bank the instructions of Yaldwyn. PREPARATION OF GUARANTEES. A security clerk at the Commercial Bank, Henry Foley, said he had prepared the guarantees ultimately signed by Pierard and Hammond. His instructions to prepare them had come from the manager. He was not present when they were signed. This closed the evidence for the defendant Yaldwyn, and Mr. Cooke called none on behalf of the bank.

Mr. O’Leary for Moore then asked leave to call plaintiff’s solicitor, Stewart Hardy, who said he had been instructed by Moore about September 5, 1933. He produced notes he had taken at the interview with Arcus. Witness had told Arcus he wished to confirm what his client had said to him regarding the interview in May, 1930. Arcus, he said, had stated on that date that he had told Moore he preferred not to advise him one way or the other. Witness then read to the Court the notes he had taken.

Moore was recalled to answer questions put by the Chief Justice. His honour: When were the terms of the intended remuneration for the guarantee (8 per cent, and £250) first mentioned to you first?—By Davies after I had been to see Yaldwyn the first time. Then according to you the sequence of events was, first Davies came to you but did not then mention the remuneration; then you went to Yaldwyn, who did not mention the terms. You then saw Arcus. After that you saw Davies, who mentioned the remuneration for the first time. It makes £370 for the one year.— That was the arrangement. “VERY SURPRISED." You have said Yaldwyn told you this was a prosperous company and you were undertaking no risk. Were you not somewhat surprised then when Davies offered you £370 for doing practically nothing?—Very surprised. It gave you food for thought?—Oh, it did. What did you do then?—l paid my second visit to Yaldwyn. What was your idea about it?—l thought it very doubtful. When did you first make a demand of any sort on Pierard or Hammond? —I learned just recently that a demand was first made in September, 1933. I sent them a letter at the end of 1931. Why . did you not see these two men?— I placed the matter in the hands of my solicitor. Mr. Dunn: Did not you or Mr. Dunn know of the reason why Pierard and Hammond said they were not liable?— No. But you did know in 1933?—Yes. This concluded the evidence and the examination of witnesses. Counsel then conferred with his Honour in chambers and it was arranged that they should address the court on the facts on Friday.