SEQUEL TO SILVER CASE

Taranaki Daily News, 31 March 1934, Page 9

SEQUEL TO SILVER CASE

allegations of blackmail TOOMEY SUES HIS SOLICITOR. DISBELIEVED BY MAGISTRATE. COMPLAINT AT LEGAL CHARGE. By Telegraph—Press Association. Auckland, Last Night. Allegations of blackmail and frequent references to the sum of £BOO in silver confiscated by the Crown last year were made in the Magistrate’s Court during the hearing of a case in which William Toomey, described as a masseur, proceeded against Frederick William Schramm, solicitor, for £BB 15s, being the alleged balance of £470 paid into a trust account with the defendant by plaintiff. The defendant was represented by Mr. Dickson and the plaintiff by Mr. Haigh. In outlining the case Mr. Haigh said the circumstances in which the money was paid to the defendant in July, 1933, were that in the previous month Toomey had had a large sum in silver stolen from him. He had instructed Schramm to act for him, and subsequently £470 had been handed by Toomey to Schramm. Later Toomey received various sums of money from this account, and finally on December 18 Schramm stated he would settle with Toomey at this time, and he would give Toomey £3B ss, retaining the balance of 75 guineas as costs. Toomey protested at this amount and asked for a bill of costs. He received a cheque, and on returning home found there was a balance of £BB 15s. The following day he again demanded a bill of costs and Schramm said he would give one. Since that time Toomey had tried to obtain the balance of the money and on February 19 had consulted Mr. Haigh himself. THREAT OF SUMMONS. Mr. Haigh said he had written to Schramm but had received no reply to his first letter, and on March 1 he had again written stating that unless a bill of costs was issued a summons would be issued. Five days later Schramm wrote back expressing surprise at the threat of a summons and asked whether Toomey repudiated the settlement made in Schramm’s office when he was given a cheque for £3B ss. Referring to the. receipt Toomey said that when he signed it the words “received £3B ss” were on it, but if the words “in settlement” were there he did not remember them. However, he could not swear that they were not there. Witness denied he agreed to any settlement at that interview; he would not agree to anything until he received a bill of costs. Cross-examined, Toomey admitted he owed Schramm some costs but. said he had had no bill. He considered 25 guineas would be a fair fee. Mr. Dickson: This silver stolen was going to be exported to Australia? Witness: It was not. Mr. Dickson remarked that the money was that in respect to which Hyman was at present serving a sentence. Mr. Dickson: Did you say that if you were successful in getting back the money seized by the Crown you would give the defendant £200? . Witness: I did not! “We are suggesting this is nothing short of blackmailing,” said Mr. Dickson in opening his address. “Toomey has been trying to extort money from my client through threats of publicity. The whole thing is an attempt to impose on the court.” SOLICITOR’S EVIDENCE. In evidence Schramm described how he had acted for Toomey and said all the particulars shown in the statement were correct. Actually many instances of professional services were not recorded. Referring to attempt to influence him witness said he had been twice telephoned by Toomey, who had made statements concerning publicity to be given to the case. “Toomey threatened me over the telephone that unless the case was fixed up he would ‘put in some dirt,”’ witness continued. Continuing his evidence, Schramm declared he had given Toomey a statement of costs when the receipt was signed and that Toomey expressed himself as being satisfied. Witness declared Toomey had agreed to 82 guineas, plus disbursements, as witness’ fee. Witness’ clerk was in the office at the time the statement was produced. A cheque for £2B 5s was made out and the receipt was signed. Mr. Haigh: Can you explain why some of this writing on the cheque is in different ink? Witness: It is not in different ink. It was all written at the same time. It may be blacker in some places than in others, but it was all written with the same ink. You are making an unworthy suggestion. Mr. Haigh: When you deduct moneys from a trust account do you not give receipts to your clilents? Witness: Not unless they ask for them. Leslie McLaren Smith, law clerk employed in Schramm’s office, gave corroborative evidence concerning the signing of the cheque and the receipt. He said Toomey expressed satisfaction with the settlement. In giving judgment for the defendant Mr. Wyvern Wilson, S.M., said that as far as the facts of the case were concerned Toomey asked him to find that Schramm and his witness were perjuring themselves and that Schramm himself was guilty of making a false document by altering the receipt after its signature. “Where the question of veracity is concerned it is as well to consider the two persons concerned,” Mr. Wilson said. “Plaintiff says he is a masseur, but he cannot bring very much evidence to convince me of this. He came to New Zealand over a year ago with the intention of starting a dancing establishment. He did not do so but found “something better,” which was apparently trafficking in silver, which caused the Crown to seize £BOO which, he says, is his. In addition there was £470 stolen from some of his associates but which eventually came back to him and was placed in the hands of defendant. “Claims to this money have apparently been made by other persons, and he has been advised to pay to some other persons some of this money. Is his testitimony to be believed against that of the defendant, a member of an honourable profession and one who keeps his office records apparently in good order? For many months he had been dealing with plaintiff’s affairs and endeavouring to recover-the' silver, and had apparently done a considerable amount of work, justifying the fee he retained. The plaintiff apparently accepted, the account given him by the defendant. I belileve the defendant also when he says the plaintiff rang him and threatened to make matters unpleasant through publicity in an endeavour to extract money from him. It also seems to me this summons has been issued with extreme haste.” Judgment was given to Schramm with costs.