AN INNOCENT SUFFERER.

Gisborne Times, Volume XXVI, Issue 2267, 12 August 1908, Page 2

AN INNOCENT SUFFERER.

THE RESULT OF AN AGENT’S FRAUD. ' CASE. [PressArsocT£*{°^‘} WELLINGTON. AugustN*^ A fraud committed by A. C. Elliott*--**, was referred to in the case Jas. John Ames, Wellington. accountant, v. Elizabeth Milsom, face specialist, decided to-day by Mr. Justice Chapman. There was, said His Honor, no important disputed fact or conflict in ovidence, and the question was which, of two innocent parties was to suffer by tho fraud of one, Elliott, who is now undergoing imprisonment for fraudently obtaining this and other sums. He had undoubtedly swindled tlve defendant out of large sums, representing years of lnrd-earned savings. He came into contact with Elliott, whom he knew personally, and who was in business as a land, agent. Elliott showed him a house . in Hawker Street, belonging to defendant, which he represented to be in his hands for sale. Plaintiff was willing to buy the house for £9OO, the price stated by Elliott. There was some foundation for Elliott’s representation as to his authority., to offer tho house for sale, but the nature of _ the authority was in dispute. Plaintiff, His Honor went on to say, drew a cheque in favor of defendant, or her order, and handed that to Elliott in order, as he explained in his evidence, that lie might get her receipt for his money. Elliott, with some demur, took this cheque and went with it to the defendant. Eventually she endorsed it, and then Elliott ’at once misappropriated the cheque to stave off pressure. He said ho went to defendant in order to honestly carry out his duty, but was tempted to misrepresent the matter when sho demurred t 0 sign. His fraudulent intention was certainly formed when he commenced telling her falsehoods. He may have tried to tell the truth in Court recently, but when ho spoke of his intentions his evidence was not of much value. Tho defendant’s signature, IPs Honor said, was obtained by a misrepresen-. tation, resulting in a total misconception as to the nature of the documents signed, as in Foster v. McKinnon, but by a misrepresentation as to the arrangement made with the plaintiff as to the course to be pursued uid as to several collateral matters. Now, it was a rule that one of two innocent persons must suffer by such a fraud. The one who had done an act facilitating tho committal of the fraud should be tlie one to suffer, unless there was some legal reason for casting tho burden on the other. His Honor found that Ames had acted with caution. Miss Milsom, he said, had taken the money into her possession and without the authority of tho plaintiff made Elliott a. trustee of it upon terms prescribed by him. and assented to by herself. Though His Honor could not help feeling re-' gret in having to givo a judgment which added to the lady's losses, ho must do justice to the plaintiff, sllc (lid not think it was incumbent on him t 0 allow interest. He did not think tlio jury would allow any, as the plaintiff entered upon a specula- ' s tivo purchase which might or might not have led to a profit bv this time.. Judgment was given for the plaintiff for £370, costs as per scale allowances. for second day £o ss, and for j second counsel £5 os’, witness’ expenses and disbursements to be fixed by the registrar.