"A DISGRACEFUL FRAUD."

Wanganui Herald, Volume XXXXIII, Issue 12580, 29 September 1908, Page 5

"A DISGRACEFUL FRAUD."

Strange Money-Lending ©«•«

(Per United Press Association.) CHRISTCHURCH, September 28. Huston Curlett, a registered moneylender, appeared in person before Mr -HW. Bishop, S.M., to-day, to sue for the recovery of £220 from Mary Suiter, being money alleged to have been lent to defendant, and interest thereon. The plamtiffstated that on April 12th, 1902, Mr Bruges obtained for him to lend to defendant for one month, and a few days later he received back £22. The Magistrate— The case is similar to the one in which Mr Cresswell appeared for you some time ago,- where the *r"hole case turned on the privity of defend&nt." Plaintiff— No ; this is a different case. The Magistrate— Well, what "hatf firs Suiter got to do with the case? The plaintiff— l will show you if you give me time. All I want is an opportunity and justice. 'Ihe Magistrate— Who is denying you justice? I won't allow you to come here and be impertinent. I have an unblemished record for 27 years, and I won't allow a man like you to imply anything against my character. If you force my hand I will deal with you so drastically that you will remember it all your life. Hour go on with yonr case. Plaintiff, after apologising, said he wanted to show where the money had gone. He then commenced to make some rather serious allegations against leading local legal practitioners. The Magistrate— You are not going to make this case a 'vehicle for casting a lot of mud at leading members of the legal profession. If what you say is true you have your remedy. Plaintiff produced the following receipts — April 12th, received from H. Curlett £220, being loan to Mrs Suiter on transfer of security. April 14th, 1902, received from F. H. Bruges £5 on account of loan to Mrs Suiter. He said that the £220 wag lent on security supposed to have been deposited with Bruges by a Mr Lawrence, on behalf of Mrs Suiter; and out of the £o he recovered £1 was paid for the transfer of that security. He had never seen principal nor interest since, though his cheque for £220, which he produced, had been cashed. He never saw Mrs Suiter about the loan at all, and never received any communication from her. Elizabeth Ann Curlett said that about June, 1902, she was with plaintiff in Bruges' office. She came there to see Bruges in regard to some money she- herself lent Curlett. She asked Bruges about Mrs Suiter's security. The money, Curlett said, had only been for a short period, and he had not received the security. Bruges said Goodman knew something about it, and he (Bruges) would see it was attended to.

In reply to a question by the Magistrate, plaintiff said he had not laid a criminal information against either Bruges or Goodman. He wanted to prove the case in a civil court.

Mary Suiter said she never authorised Bruges to borrow ,£220 on her behalf. She had lent money through Bruges. Ollivier had sent for her to come and prove as a creditor. She never had Is of this money and did not know Curlett. She got practically the whole of her money and interest back.

The Magistrate — The whole thing is a fraud, a barefaced fraud, and Mrs Suiter is not to blame. It is a flagrant and disgraceful fraud on someone's part, and plaintiff ought to prosecute the party responsible. Plaintiff would be mm -suited.