MONEY-LENDING.

Dominion, Volume 2, Issue 314, 29 September 1908, Page 7

MONEY-LENDING.

A CHRISTCHURCH CASE. STRONG COMMENTS BY A MAGISTRATE. (Br TELEGRAPH —PRESS ASSOCIATION.) Christchurch, September 28. Huston Curlett, a registeied money-lender, appoarod in person before Mr. H. W. Bishop, S.M., to-c]ay to sue for tho recovery of £220 from Mary Suiter, being. money alleged to have been, lent to defendant and . interest thereon. Plaintiff stated that on April 12, 1902, Mr. Bruges obtained £220 from him to lend to defendant for - one month, and a few days later ho received back £22. Tho. Magistrate: This case is similar to tho .ono in which Mr. Cresswell appeared for you some time ago, where the whole case turned on tho privity of defendant. Plaintiff: No. This is a different case. The Magistrate: Well, what has Mrs. Suiter Got to do with tho case? The plaintiff: I will show you if you give mo time. All I want is an opportunity and justice. _ The Magistrate: Who is denying you justice? I won't allow you to como here and bo impertinent. I have an unblemished record of twenty-seven years, and I don'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. Now go on with your case. Plaintiff, after apologising, said he wanted to show where the money had gone. He then commenced'to inako soino rather serious allegations against leading local lfegal 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 truo you havo your remedy. Plaintiff produced the following receipts:— "April 12, received from H. Curlett £220, being loan to Mrs. Suiter on transfer of security." "April 14, 1902, received from F. H. Bruges, £5 on account of loan to Mrs. Suiter." Ho said that tho £220 was lent oil security supposed to havo been deposited with Bruges by a Mr. Lawrence on behalf of Mrs. Suiter, and out of tho £5 ho received £1 was paid for the transfer of that security. Ho had ; never soen principal nor interest since, though his cheque for £220, which he produced, had been cashed. Ho never saw Mrs. Suiter about tho loan at all,' and never received any communication from her. Elizabeth Ann Curlett said that about Juno, 1902, she was with tho plaintiff in Bruges's office. She was thero to see Bruges in regard to somo money she herself had lent. Curlett asked Bruges about Mrs. Suitor's security. Tho money Curlett said had only been lent for a short period, and lio 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 tho Magistrate plaintiff said he had not laid a criminal information against either Bruges or Goodman. Ho wanted to prove tho case in a civil Court. Mary Suiter said sho never authorised Bruges to borrow £220 on her behalf. She had lent money through Bruges. Mr. Ollivier had sent for her to como and prove as a croditor. She never had ono shilling of this money nnd did not know Curlett. Sho got practically tho wholo of her money and interest back. Tho Magistrate: Tho wholo thing is -. a fraud, a barefaced fraud, and Mrs. Suitor 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 bo nonsuitod.