February 25 th Telegraph
The Sheffield and Hallamshire Loan and Investment Society
Strange Revelations
At the Sheffield County Court yesterday, before the judge (T.Ellison, Esq.) a rather extraordinary action was heard. It was one in which Samuel Howard, a farmer, at Denaby Range, near Rotherham, sued the Sheffield and Hallamshire loan and investment society to recover £11, monies illegally demanded and wrongfully paid to the society by the plaintiff, and also to recover the possession of a certain deed purporting to be a bill of sale in which the money was paid. Mr Chambers appeared for the plaintive, and Mr Clegg represented the defendants. In opening the case, Mr Chambers characterised the action as one of the most extraordinary nature, and one which, he could not disguise, was surrounded with difficulties, but he hoped the difficulties will be overcome and justice done to the parties engaged. It appeared that in June last the plaintiff was about entering on a farm, and not knowing the exact amount of valuation he would have to pay, he wished to be fully prepared with the money that would be required. Plaintiff believe that he would have to pay more money for the valuation than he actually had, and, unluckily for him, he saw an advertising issued by the defendants from their offices in church Street, Sheffield. He called upon them, and in the first instance negotiated for a loan of £100, but ultimately he found that £50 would be as much as it would require, and that only for a period of six months. Like a man of business, he asked what the loan would cost him, and a person in the office told him that the charge would be £30. This frightened the plaintive, who took up his hat and said “Good morning; I must go.” Another person then came from behind the scenes, and told him that he could have the money for £20. That sum appeared to be an enormous one to the plaintive, and as they were talking the matter over, Mr James, Henry Belton, the Chief Director of the society, made his appearance, and the plaintiff agreed with him that he was to have £50 for six months for £10. Plaintiff was to give security, Mr Belton explained to him that the security he would have to give was that he should insure his life in the British Empire Mutual Life Assurance Society, of which he was the agent, for the sum of £250. The premiums for the insurance were paid in advance, and to make the matter perfectly safe on the part of the society, Mr Belton insisted that the plaintiff should pay two half years in advance. The insurance was completed, and plaintiff received the sum of £41 1s 6d., the two half years premiums of £4 9s 10d been deducted from the loan. Plaintiff was then told he would have to sign a document Here the plaintiff’s business qualities seem to have forsaken him, for he signed the document without reading it andknowing exactly what it was, but he understood that it was a bill of sale prepared in the office for the £60 which he was to pay at the end of six months. Plaintiff then left the office. When the day for the payment of the money came plaintiff went to the office with a £60 in gold to pay according to his agreement. He saw a person, not Mr Belton, and he toldhim hewish to settle his account withthe society, and he produces papers stating that some mistakehad be made as he had only £60 to pay and not £63 10s which was the money demanded from him. The person he saw told him he could not undertake to settle the matter in the absence of Mr Belton, and thereupon plaintiff said that as he was in the habit of coming to the market every week he would call pay the money the following week. T he very next morning he was visited at his house by three persons, who produced a bill of sale and demanded the payment of £63 10s The plaintive protested, but the men said they were determined to have the money, and not wishing to have any scandal by the seizure of his goods, or anything of that kind, plaintive paid the money, and the receipt was given to him for it. That being done, the person produced a Bill of sale then said, “I want £7 10s more for expenses for levying this.” Plaintive objected, but he was told that if he did not pay his goods would be seized. Plaintiff refuse for some time, but ultimately he paid the £7 10s for the so-called expenses under protest.
The men then went away, and the next morning plaintive received a letter from the society to the effect that they forwarded his policy of insurance in compliance with the settlement of the Bill of sale. Subsequently plaintive called at the office of the society and demanded the Bill of sale which had been executed by him, and also demanded the repayment of the £3 10s, and the £7 10s which he alleged, had been wrongfully obtained from him. These demands were refused, and plaintiff was told that the Bill of Sale was in the hands of their attorney,and could be seen if application were made to him.
When the document was examined it proved to be a Bill of Sale with theSociety and attested by some officials of the society. It was not in the name of the society, but in the names of James Henry Belton, Joseph Bennett, and Thomas Drewery, and had not been presented by an attorney or an attorney´s clerk. The three persons mentioned were shareholders of the society.
The society had a clause in their deeds the object of which he (Mr Chambers) could not understand. The clause set forth that as soon as the security for loans was proved the paper should not be given up to the person who gave the security. It was on the strength of that clause that the refusal was made to give up the document. That was the state of things.
The plaintivehad contracted with Mr Belton, the agent of the society, for a loan of £50, which was to cost £10, a reasonable amount of profit he thought for six months. Plaintiff was ready to pay the money, and wanted to do so, and he asked what earthly necessity was therefore the defendants to send men to his house with a bill of sale, and demanding instant payment of the money, together with the extortionate sums for so-called expenses. What had been practised upon the plaintiff was in his (Mr Chambers) opinion most atrocious and rascally. It was true that plaintive might not have acted in a very businesslike manner, but he was happy the law protected foolish men, andhe hopedthrough the medium of the court they would remedy what had occurred.
If these were the kind of transactions carried on by the Sheffield and Hallamshire Loan and Investment society, the sooner they were made public, the better it would be for honest men, and it was high time they were put an end to.
The plaintiff was then called, and confirm the foregoing statement. No other witnesses on his behalf were examining. Mr Clegg, on behalf of the defendants, contended that he had no case to answer. Hishonour said the question was whether the defendants had been guilty of fraud in getting the plenty to sign a document without reading it when he possessed the power to read it. He reserved his decision until March.
March 18th
Extraordinary Loan Office Transactions
At the Sheffield County Court, yesterday, before Mr T.Ellison, Judge, the hearing of a case in which Samuel Howard, a farmer, living at Denaby Range, near Rotherham, was the plaintiff and the Sheffield and Hallamshire Society, the defendants, was concluded after a protracted clearing.
It appeared that the defendant’shad lentthe plaintiff £50 for 6 months, and that they claimed £63 10s at the end of that time. The plaintiff paid that amount under protest, his contention being that the defendants had engaged to allow him the loan of £50 for £60, the £10 being for interest. He also claimed to recover £7.10 shillings, whichhe had paid to thedefendantsas expenses in connection with the levying of a bill of sale.
His Honour, in giving a verdict for the plaintive with costs, pointed out some gross improprieties on the part of the loan society, who, he said, had acted fraudulently. The bill of sale he therefore considered null and void, and that they had no right to the expenses incurred in the levying of it.