Arrest of an Earl's Son.

Manawatu Herald, 1 February 1898, Page 2

Arrest of an Earl's Son.

■*» BILL DISCOUNTING SCANDAL. London cablegrams of the 25th January announced that Lord WiFliara Nerill, fourth aon of the Marquis of Abergavenny, who has been arreated ia connection with the money-lending scandal as to which hig name was lately before the Queen's Bench Division, was brought up at the Bow street Police Coart, and remanded for a week on bail. Th 9 accused voluntarily returned from Paris to meet the allegations made against him. English papers of the beginning of December date give particulars of the trial heard before the Lord Chief Justice and a special jury of Lewis v. Clay. THE ACTION. The action was brought by Mr Samuel Lewis, bill discounter, Corkstreet., against Mr H. Spender Clay, of the Hermitage, Ascot, Berks, subaltern in the 2nd Life Guards, to recover (he sum of £11,113, with interest, upon two promissory notes made by him and Lord W. Nevill. — Mr Lewis was called, and his evidence was to the effect that he had received the bills from Lord William Nevill in the ordinary course of busintas. Mr Lewis mentioned to Lord Nevill that he wished to make Mr Clay's acquaintance, but bfs lordship said that his friend was much engaged in his military pursuits, and the interview was abandoned. Mr Lewis also received letters of authori sation to pay the money to Lord William. PLAINTIFF OBOSS EXAMINED. Cross examined by Sir £. Clarke, Mr Lewis admitted that he had made a separate agreement with Lord W. Nevill providing for the payment of interest after maturity, at the rate of 80 per cent on the £3,000 bill, and 40 per cent on the £8,000 bill. He admitted that there was one young gentleman whose people had to pay £40,000 within the compass fit a single year. He (witness) did not understand that. Mr Clay only came of age on June 4, 1896 ; nor did he know at the time his father was a member of Parliament, living in Grosvenor-sq. He learned it after. He did not know until a few days ago where Lord W. Nevill was, but he now beard he was in Paris. This closed the oase for plaintiff. A RSMABXABUS STORY. Sir E. Clarke then stated the case for defendant. He said that Mr Spender Clay was a young man of large fortune, and a remarkable feature in connection with the case was that he had no notice or intimation of any soi t as to what was taking place until Dae. 19. The history of the signatures to the bills was remarkable. In June, 1896, there was a paying house party at the Hermitage for the Ascot week. On June 21, Lord W. Nevill came to Mr Clay and told him that he wanted Mr Clay to witness bis (Lord William's) signature. Some demur was made by Mr Clay, who asked to see the documents, and Lord W. Nevill said that there was a divorce suit pending in which Lady Cowley, his sister, was petitioner, and that, in connection with this case, some papers had to be executed. He aeked defendant to sign without reading the documents, and the young man was foolish enough to do so, and signed his name in 4 places, and from that time up to December. 1896, he bad not the slightest idea lilfat he had signed promissory noteß, or had incurred the slightest responsibility. Next, on Deo. 2, Lord W. Nevill called on defendant, and I asked him to put his name on certain papers which he said were connected with a deed that bad to be executed, and that it was a private matter. Defendant mentioned this matter to a friend, with the result that defend ant's solicitor was consulted, and defendant got back from Lord W. Nevill those signatures on Dso. 2, wbicb had been got from him by a trick. After this, thn question cam«» up what it was Mr Clay had signed in June, and it was only on farther

investigation that he found the? were promissory notes. Mr Spender Clay supported Sir 3. Clark's 'statement. At the conclusion of Mr Clay's cvi- • denoe Sir E. Clarke addressed the jury for the defence. QUESTIONS TO THE JOBY. The questions the jury would have to consider were these : First, Did plaintiff take the promissory notes in good faith? Secondly, Was defend* ant's account of the ciroumstenoef, under which he signed his name, substantially true ? Thirdly, Was defendant, in signing his name as he did reckleisly careless, thereby enabling Lord William Nevill to perpetrate a fraud ? Fourthly, Were Che signatures to the document given by defendant in misplaced confidence in Lord Wm. Nevill as to their nature ? Fifthly, Did defendant give his name to be used by Lord Wm. , Nevill for any purpose he chose. VJSBDICT. —The jury answered the fluxions m thus: First;: Yes; eeepoJ/ "te*;^ third, No, under clnmoatances : fourth, Yes; fifth, request of Mr t. Wtlton, tot. Jury were sent back to aniwir paettiaa 8 in a modified term— Did defendant sign the documents without due caret They replied, "No not nnder the oircumstanoes.— Judgment deferred. Judgment was referred.