The Case of Shepherd v. Davis.

Manawatu Herald, 21 September 1899, Page 3

The Case of Shepherd v. Davis.

DEFENDANT TO PAY WITHIN 170 YEARS. At the Stipendiary Magistrate's Court, to day, Mr Beetham gave judgment in the summons case in which H. G. Shepherd sued J. D. Davis for £64 143, money advanced to one Victor A. Hill, who bad reprr. sen ted to defendant that if he could raise £50 he could catch the horse fiend. His Worship said : In this case fraud ia alleged, basrd upon following document: — " Christchurch, 20th March, 1899. H G. Shepherd, Esq., Cbristchurcb. Dear Sir, -In consideration of your advancing the sum of £50 this day to myself and Victor Hill, Christ church, constable, for which we have given you our j int and several promissory notes for £72, payable on demand, being the said sum of £50 and a sum of £22 for interest, I hereby declare that my stock-in. f radf\ etc., in my shop in Colombo street, Ohristchurch, is worth ovtr and above all my liabilities, £700 at the least, and I understand that it is on reliance on this statement you are making the said advance. I further undertake not to mortgage or in any way encumbnr my said stock in trade until yon shall have been paid the sum of £72 I understand, of oourse, that although the promissory note is payable on demand you will not demand payment so long as the snm of six pounds is paid to you on the first day of every month or within seven days thereafter, commencing from the Ist May nest. — J, D. Davis Witness to signature, W. Byrne, solicitor, Christchurch ;,P. L. Bryne law clerk, Christchurch." The debt really represents a sum of money supplied by the debtor to one Victor Hill, an ex-constable, now in gaol, to enable him, as be said, to catch the horse fiend, a transaction of a most absurd character. la order to carry out this idea, the debtor agreed to pay about 170 per cent, for the money advanced by Shepherd. The debtor paid Shepherd two instalments of £6 each, and on his tendering the third instalment, it being overdue, it was refused by Shepherd, who brought an action for the recovery of the balance due, £60 Judgment went by default, and distress followed, also an interpleader summons. The defendant finding himself in difficulties, sold the whole of bis stock for £325 11* Bd, and divided the proceeds amongst bin creditors leaving Shepherd out, stating that he considered he did not owe him anything. Subsequently he offered Shepherd a sum of money, which he hud collected from his creditors, which, with the instalments already paid, amounted nearly to the .money advanced, That was refused, and the present judgment symmons taken out. The debtor from the first has acted in the most extraordinry and incomprehensible manner. He says that his memory is defective. That may be so, and I am incljped to think it is but, except on the hypothesis that he in of unsound mind, which I cannot believe, because his later transactions had been those of a removable man in full possession of bis sfenses, it is impossible for me to hold that the document he signed

is not a fraudulent rriisrepre?entation of his petition at the time he signed the promissory note. He i 3 a man of sixty six yea rg of age, and he is not worth a shilling, he and his wife being 1 id receipt of old age {tension; The creditor must have known that, and it is net with the view of recovering tbe money that th«'S3 pro* ceedibgs ars taken, but in order that the debtor should be ithprtaofceti I cannot bold that fraud bus not been proved; but lean follow the example of tbe English ; Coun'y Courts in cases of u?liry siich at this is. The order of the Court as that the debtor must pay the mom>y, or in default be imprisoned for one month, and I hereby direct the Olerk of the Court to suspend this order so long as the debtor shall pay the sum of 6d a month in liquidation of tbe debt. The creditor haa charged about 170 per cent, on the loan, and 1 think it will take about 170 years to pay the debt. — Truth.