ARISTOCRATIC FINANCE.

Manawatu Herald, Volume XXXII, Issue 834, 3 May 1910, Page 4

ARISTOCRATIC FINANCE.

The King’s Bench division in Loudon was regaled on a recent Saturday with stories of £2OO as a fee for introducing someone into Paris society, and of a cheque to a prince being dishonoured. These matters came to light in the course of the resumed hearing of the action brought by Mr Newton Ogle, High Sheriff of Northumberland, and Lord Kinnoull against Mrs Camilla Violet Hay, a daughter of Lord Grenville. The case was commenced the previous Saturday and adjourned for the attendance of Mr Hay, the plaintiffs seeking to recover ,£144 17s due on guarantees given to the lady’s hankers, and the defence being that the guarantees were obtained by Mr Hay without Mrs Hay’s authority. The plaintiff’s case was that they became the guarantors to Lloyd's Bank for an overdraft by Mrs Hay, who divorced her husband (Mr Alister Hay) in Scotland two years ago. It was in 1903 that Mrs Hay drew two cheques —for ,£9O and ,£20 —on her account at the bank. Mr Hay at that time was a bankrupt, and Mr Ogle and Lord Kimioull guaranteed the sura:.. Mrs Play had 110 assets, and an overdraft was necessary. This had never been paid, and plaintiff had settled the debt with interest, the total amount being ,£144 17s. Mrs Hay was recalled and closely interrogated by Mr Schwabe (for the plaintiffs). Do you remember (asked counsel) receiving ,£4OO rom somebody called Harman? —Mrs Hay (indignantly) ; I received some money from a Miss Harman —about ,£2oo—for taking her out in society in Paris. Mr Hay was aware of that fact, and it was with his approval that I accepted it. Mrs Hay denied that a Mr Ouvrie advanced her sums of money on promissory notes. Mr Schwabe : Did you arrange with your husband, then, that he should obtain this money from Ouviie?—Mrs Hay: I did not instruct my husband.

Mr Justice Jelf : I think the question was whether you arranged with him. —Defendant replied that she signed no promissory notes. Mr Schwabe: Is it a fact that at the time your husband left you your daughter was staying with his sister in Sussex ?—For her Christmas holidays, yes. Pressed in this connection Mrs Hay said possibly the time of her visit extended to about four months.

Mr Schwabe : This is hardly the impiesion your first answer conveyed.

INCIDENT OF A PARIS CLUB.

Dealing with the cheques in respect of which the guarantees were given, Mrs Hay said the ,£9O was not handed to her; nor did she know that Mr Ogle had guaranteed the amount. She did not (she declared) then ask Mr Hay to get Mr Ogle to guarantee a further ,£2O to enable her to meet a dressmaking account. “And didn’t you,” asked Mr Schwabe in conclusion, “write to Lord Kinuoull, in the presence of Mr Hay, thanking him ? —Mrs Hay : No.

Mr Hay then gave evidence on behalf of the plaintiffs. He said he was a brother of Lord Kinnoull, and was attending that day on subpoena. lie had nothing to do with the bringing of this action, and was ill when the hearing was commenced. At one time, proceeded the witness, he was a member of the Stock Exchange, and had the misfortune to be suspended. Mr Schwabe: And in your view, was it on a true charge or not ? —Mr Hay : Untrue. Witness went on to say he became bankrupt, but was discharged in December, 1903. When he was married to the defendant he opened a joint banking account ; but at the time of his bankruptcy, about eight years after their marriage, his account was transferred to Mrs Hay’s name. In regard to the two cheques, he said Mrs Hay knew about the guarantees and had the money. She had signed promissory notes, which he negotiated.

Cross-examined: Any sums of money raised from time to time were always for family purposes. He once belonged to a club in the Boulevard des Capucines, Paris,

Mr Matthews: And did you not have to leave the club in consequence of cheques which you had given being dishonoured ? Mr Hay ; I gave a cheque to one member which was dishonoured.

And in consequence were you expelled ?—I was asked to resign. (Laughter). It was a cheque in favour of Prince ? —Yes.

His Lordship, in giving judgment in favour of the plaintiffs for the amount claimed, said the least said about the case the soonest mended. He was satisfied that the defendant knew all about the guarantees, and that they were obtained at her request, or, at any rate, with her knowledge. An application for stay of execution was refused.