|
|
|
|
MIONTUAIRISC NA FINNEACHTA(Minutes of Evidence)Déardaoin, 5adh Márta, 1931.Thursday, 5th March, 1931.The Committee met at 11 a.m.
DEPUTY J. T. WOLFE in the Chair. Mr. Thomas A. Finucane called and examined by the Chairman.1376. You are Manager of the Commercial Union Loan and Discount Banking Company?—The Commercial Union Loan and Discount Company. The word “banking” is not included. 1377. You carry on business at 57 Middle Abbey Street?—Yes. 1378. Deputy Briscoe.—Did you at one time have the word “banking” included in your title?—That is correct. 1379. When did you change it?—Close on twenty years ago. 1380. How long is it since it was taken off your window?—It must be over fifteen years ago. Moneylenders cannot use the word “bank;” it is illegal. 1381. You did, at one time, trade as a bank?—I believe that originally that was the name they had. It had to be stopped subsequently. That is over fifteen or sixteen years ago. 1382. Chairman.—We had evidence here by a gentleman that his wife was dealing with your firm, amongst other moneylenders, without his knowledge. May I take it that you do have transactions with married women without the knowledge of their husbands?—Would you mind mentioning the gentleman’s name? 1383. We had to give an undertaking that his name would not be published, but I shall have his name handed to you on a slip of paper?—I identify the man in question. This is rather awkward and embarrassing. The strictest privacy has been observed in connection with this gentleman and his wife, under a guarantee, I presume, from the Committee. On the other hand, we, being moneylenders, get all the publicitly. 1384. That is not exactly what I was asking. We want, first of all, to ascertain from you whether it is a fact that you have transactions with married women without the knowledge of their husbands?—Not in my firm. 1385. This gentleman stated what was incorrect, according to you, when he stated that his wife had had transactions with you without his knowledge?—I have to qualify my answer in this way. The applicant in this case—the lady referred to—informed us that she had separate estate by being owner of her house. 1386. Had you any communication with her husband?—No. 1387. In fact, he stated what was correct when he said that his wife was carrying on business with you without his knowledge or consent?—I understood that she had her husband’s consent. 1388. Deputy G. Wolfe.—Was she asked that?—Yes. 1389. Chairman.—Had you it?—No. 1390. Did you ask for it?—I understood he was in Steevens’ Hospital. 1391. Did you ask for his written consent?—No. 1392. Was it the husband that led you to understand that she had his consent? —When she said she was a married woman, we asked to get her husband with her. 1393. You asked for no evidence of that?—She informed me he was in Steeven’s’ Hospital. 1394. You took her statement as to that?—As a matter of fact, she telephoned to Steevens’ Hospital. 1395. Did you take her statement?—I accepted her word for it. 1396. When you tell the Committee that you do not deal with married women without the knowledge or consent of their husbands, you mean that before dealing with them they have got to tell you that they have got their husbands consent and you take their word for it? —Not in every case. 1397. You do not verify their statements?—Not very often. 1398. In this particular case, you did not verify the statement?—What influenced me in this case was that she said she was owner of the house she occupied. 1399. Did you require any evidence to show that she was owner of her house? —She produced a letter that the house was being sold. 1400. Have you got it?—No. 1401. Did she sign a statement for you? —No. 1402. What she did tell you and what you were more anxious to know than anything else was what exactly her husband was?—Yes. 1403. Did you verify that?—She told me he was in Steevens’ Hospital. 1404. With the object of verifying that, was telephonic communication made with Steevens’ Hospital?—She telephoned herself. 1405. Who got the answer?—She herself spoke to him on the telephone. 1406. In the result, you did deal with this married woman?—Yes. 1407. Coming back to where we started, may I take it that it is the custom not only of other moneylenders, but of your firm to deal with married women without the knowledge or consent of their husbands?—Not in my case. 1408. There is this instance?—Yes, but you may remember that I qualified my answer. 1409. I am not asking for any qualification of your answer. This is one instance in which you had dealings with a married woman?—Yes. 1410. You will admit that you had those dealings without the knowledge or consent, so far as you were personally aware, of her husband?—Personally, I believe that her husband had full knowledge of the transaction with me. 1411. Let me point out to you that you had no evidence and no personal knowledge of that?—I admit that. 1412. May I take it that the same thing might have occurred in other cases? —No. You must not assume that. 1413. How does this account stand now?—I have never been repaid. 1414. How much did you lend?—£10. 1415. How much is due?—£14. 1416. What was the bill signed for?— £14. 1417. Payable when?—Two pounds per month. 1418. For seven months?—Yes. 1419. What you charged was £4 for a loan of £10, repayable at £2 per month? —That is right. 1420. Roughly, what rate per cent. per annum would that be?—I did not calculate it. 1421. How much do you think it would be?—I did not work it out. 1422. Have you never been curious enough to work out these propositions for yourself?—No; I did not work it out. 1423. Do you not think that it is rather dangerous to find moneylenders and moneylenders’ managers carrying on business not knowing what rate per cent. they are charging?—I do not say that. 1424. You do not think that is a dangerous position to be in?—No. 1425. As a matter of curiosity, could you give me any idea of what you think the rate per cent. per annum would be in this case?—Approximately, 40 per cent. 1426. If you were hopelessly wrong in that, do you not think that the Committee would be faced with a difficult position if they found the manager of a large and well-established moneylending firm charging something like 100 per cent. under the impression that he was only charging 40 per cent.?—I have not gone into the question of interest. 1427. Would not you agree with me that if we came across such a case—I am giving a hypothetical case—it would create a very difficult position?—Everything would depend upon the risk involved. 1428. Do not run away from the question. If we find a manager charging 100 per cent. per annum under the impression that he is only charging 40 per cent., does it not create a difficult position?— Possibly. 1429. In many cases in Dublin, whether it is that the managers or the moneylenders cannot calculate the rate of interest or not, they do not do it. What steps have you taken to recover this money from the lady in question?—At the moment, I am in communication with her solicitor. 1430. Do you communicate at all with her husband?—Through her solicitor. He is really her husband’s solicitor. 1431. Is the lady told that if she does not pay, her husband will be communicated with?—No. 1432. What kind of evidence did you get that she was the owner of the house she lived in? Whom was this letter from and to whom was it addressed?—I cannot remember at the moment. 1433. Perhaps you would be wrong about it altogether?—I distinctly remember her producing a letter. I understand now it was her husband owned the house. 1434. You stated that she produced a letter to you showing that she was the owner of the house?—Yes. 1435. You accepted that?—Yes. 1436. You charge the lady now with having produced that letter for this purpose?—No. 1437. You cannot have it every way. You charge the lady with having produced a letter to you showing on the face of it that she was the owner of the house?— Yes. 1438. You charge her with producing a false document?—She produced a letter, false or not false. 1439. You did not keep it?—She would not let me. 1440. You did not keep a copy?—No. 1441. Did you make any entry in your books regarding this transaction?— Certainly. 1442. Have you got a copy of it here?— No. 1443. Would the entry in your books show her statement to you?—No. 1444. Do you do business in this way— that when a person goes in to borrow a sum of £10 from you and makes a statement as to means, you take that “on the nod” and do not take a note of it? —The letter covered her statement and I accepted that. 1445. Deputy Briscoe.—It is quite easy to satisfy yourself as to whether a person is owner of a house or not?—Yes. 1446. You did not take any steps to ascertain that in this case?—Only the letter. 1447. It might have been a letter authorising a certain house agent to sell the house?—Yes. 1448. It might have been written by her husband or a house agent?—Possibly. 1449. Then we shall leave the letter out. Do you not adopt the practice of putting on the document signed by the applicant the statement as to his means or her means for future reference?—Not in every case. 1450. You do in some cases?—Yes. 1451. You sometimes produce that evidence to the applicant when he has fallen into arrear showing that he has made a misstatement on other occasions? —Not necessarily. 1452. Your firm has had experience of a person applying for the loan of money and stating he had a job in a certain concern, with an income of so much per week, and you have discovered by subsequent evidence that such statement was untrue?—I do not think I have had any experience of that, so far. 1453. You have knowledge of such a thing happening?—I believe it has happened, but I have no experience of it. 1454. Your firm does not make a practice of making a note of these things?— Not in every case. 1455. Deputy Wolfe.—Had you dealings with the lady before?—No. 1456. And you knew nothing whatever about her?—No. 1457. You accepted everything she said without verification?—I was satisfied with the letter. 1458. You are a long time in business. Do you accept everything that is told you?—Not in every case. 1459. What reason had you to think that this lady was an exception?—She looked a respectable person. 1460. A good many people do?—Unfortunately, that is so, and we get “had,” but we must take risks. That cannot be avoided. 1461. Deputy Briscoe.—You stated that you were in communication with the lady’s solicitor; did the husband’s solicitor get in touch with you before that?— I will tell you exactly what happened so that we can get the truth. I was in Court one day when this solicitor came across, said that he was acting for Mr. K——, and that he had full knowledge of my dealings with Mr. K——’s wife. He said, “You will be glad of a settlement,” and I replied, “Certainly.” He asked, “What will you take to settle?” I said that I would be delighted to get my money back and to cry quits. 1462. That is in accordance with the evidence given by Mr. K—— here, that he was making an effort to pay?—I believe he is, and I believe we will be paid. At the time, the solicitor remarked to me: “That is very fair, Mr. Finucane.” 1463. This lady applied for £10 and signed a bill for £14. Was the payment of £10 made by you in cash?—Yes. There has been talk about the interest that was charged, but we all get this trouble and annoyance. We are let down so badly that we only want to get the money back. 1464. Would you be surprised to know that the interest amounted to 160 per cent.?—If you charged 1,000 per cent., it would not pay you in some cases. 1465. Deputy MacEoin.—If they did not pay, you would have to go out of business?—I would be delighted if I got permission to put our books on the table and I guarantee I would surprise the members of the Committee. 1466. Deputy Doyle.—Do you approve of the policy, if I might so term it, of moneylenders making loans to women without the knowledge of their husbands? —I do not. I condemn it strongly. 1467. Were you aware that this particular person who had transactions with you was doing business with twelve moneylenders?—No. If I did, I would not have given her a penny. I understood she was dealing with no one else. 1468. You were no party to knowing that?—Not at all. 1469. There was no ring or co-operation going on between the moneylenders about this particular person?—Nonsense. 1470. You deny that?—I do emphatically. 1471. What is your opinion regarding the matter being in the hands of the solicitor? Was any other pressure being brought to bear?—None whatever. If I do not get a penny from the solicitor, it will have to be marked off as a bad debt. Here is a case where you have a woman coming in to borrow money. She looks to be a respectable, decent sort. She telephones to her husband who is in Steevens’ Hospital, and you are satisfied that he is there. She says that she is the owner of the house, produces a letter, and promises that she will pay out of the proceeds of the sale. 1472. Deputy Wolfe.—Did you hear her communicating with Steevens’ Hospital? —Yes. I heard her husband on the telephone. I would be delighted if the Commission would bring the lady here face to face. 1473. Chairman.—She might get the best of it?—That would not surprise me. The moneylender always feels that he is in the position of a criminal, despite the fact that he is as respectable a citizen of the Free State as anybody else. 1474. Do you agree that the lady’s statements are more or less guaranteed by written documents while yours are not? If what you state is accurate, do you suggest that she produced to you a false letter, while you have not got that false letter, nor any particulars of it? In fact, you have no note of it. You must admit that to take the statement of an intending borrower without making some note of it is very loose business?—I thank you for the compliment. If you wish, I will produce satisfactory evidence to satisfy the Commission that the lady did make the statements. 1475. Where is the letter?—I will produce verbal evidence on oath. 1476. You admitted to me that you did not keep the letter?—She would not let me keep it. 1477. You did not take a note of it?— A mental note. 1478. No written note?—No. 1479. Do you not think that was loose business?—It was a small loan. 1480. You were not relying on her statement as to ownership of the house? —I accepted her statement that she was the sole owner of the house and that we would be paid. I hope I have made my position perfectly clear. 1481. Deputy Little.—Do you know anyone called Mrs. B. Morris?—She has a representative here. 1482. Do you know anyone called Mofsovitch?—Yes; there is a representative here. 1483. Do you know any person named Boland?—Yes. 1484. Is that person represented?—No. 1485. Do you ever have any business dealings with him?—He is a moneylender. 1486. Did you ever take clients from him?—Goodness gracious, no. 1487. Have you had any communication with him?—Emphatically, no. That is a practice I would not tolerate for five minutes. 1488. Do you know if that practice is carried on?—Not that I know. I would not tolerate it. Has there been any evidence given that things like that are done? I would like to have that matter sifted to the bottom as far as my firm is concerned. 1489. There has been evidence that that practice is carried on?—By my firm? 1490. I would not say by your firm?— As far as the Commercial Union Loan and Discount Company are concerned, I wish to contradict it. 1491. Deputy Briscoe.—Is there any subsidiary company in your business?— No. 1492. There was never a separate loan business carried on by a person at the same address?—Never. 1493. You are certain of that?—Perfectly certain. 1494. Certain statements and allegations have been made from time to time that the owner of your concern had a daughter who recently married?—That is a personal matter, and I refuse to answer anything about it. 1495. Did she not carry on business on her own account?—Never. Most emphatically, no. 1496. I am only giving you an opportunity of refuting the statement, and you must accept it in that faith?—I do. I am sure that no one knows better than Deputy Briscoe that it is not the case. 1497. I do not know it. Statements were made to me that a separate business was carried on in the same line?—Was it specifically stated that it was in connection with our office? 1498. It was. I can give an instance if you like?—I would be pleased if you would. 1499. You are aware that at one time certain street traders were in difficulties, and that I went bail and collected certain moneys for them?—Yes. 1500. You may not be aware that when I had collected the money a lady came from your office and said that she was sent by Mr. Watchhorn to know when the next distribution would be made, as money was owing to her by the street traders?—I would like if you could get the name and the address of the lady. 1501. As it happens, the lady was told to go about her business?—What a pity it was that you did not take her name and address. 1502. She was not in the office as an assistant?—No. 1503. And was not in the business at all?—No. 1504. Did she carry on business elsewhere?—No. 1505. You are making that definite statement?—Yes, and on my oath if you wish. I would like to see you privately about that. 1506. I am putting it to you so that you can correct it?—I was never at any time aware of such a thing taking place. My statement can bear the strictest investigation. 1507. She was not in the office at all, even in the capacity of typist?—No. Being a daughter of the proprietor, she could come and go as she liked, but she took no active part in the business—absolutely none. Miss Kathleen Brown examined on behalf of Mrs. Morris, 66 Abbey Street, Dublin.1508. Chairman.—What position do you occupy in the firm?—Private secretary. 1509. Have you personal knowledge of this transaction?—Yes. 1510. Do you know the lady referred to well?—Yes, Mrs. K——. 1511. She was doing business with your firm for some time?—That is right. 1512. You knew that she was a married woman?—Yes. 1513. Did you communicate at all with her husband?—No; not in this case. 1514. How many different accounts had this lady with you?—I could not tell. She has only one account at present. 1515. In how many different names did she do business?—She never got any cash except for herself. 1516. That is hardly what I am asking you. Are you not aware that she was carrying on business with you in respect of different accounts?—No; two ladies came in with her. They both got loans. I have given you the names of them. 1517. Would you recognise those cards (handing three cards to Witness)?—Yes, but these two ladies got the loan themselves. Mrs. K—— recommended these two people, and they got cash themselves. 1518. Were these three married ladies? —Yes. 1519. And the two were introduced to you by Mrs. K——?—Yes. 1520. On that recommendation you gave the three loans?—Yes. 1521. Have you been paid anything out of that?—I did not look up the account. 1522. But can you tell us if you have been paid anything back?—Yes, Mrs. McC——came in and paid the money herself. 1523. Had you knowledge that it was Mrs. K——’s bill?—No. 1524. Has Mrs. McC—— a husband?—I do not know. 1525. Did you not go to the trouble of finding out?—No, because I did not deal with that particular case. Possibly Mrs. Morris did. 1526. Was this lady, Mrs. K——, when she came to you, asked any questions?— Yes. 1527. Did she sign any paper?—Yes, for the money she got. 1528. Did she sign anything as regards the answers she gave you?—No. 1529. Did you take a note as regards what she said to you?—We take an application. She tells us all about herself, where she lives and what her husband is. 1530. Does she sign it?—No; I ask her the question and write it down in the book. 1531. How much did the lady borrow in her own name?—£9. 1532. How much did you give her in cash?—£6 15s. 0d. 1533. How many times was that renewed?—I cannot say. 1534. You cannot say how long it was going on?—I think about a second or third time. 1535. Could you tell me what was the original amount of cash she got?—£6 15s. was the amount. 1536. Was that the first transaction? I do not know whether she got a smaller amount as a first loan. 1537. I put it to you that when she signed the last bill she got £1 7s. 0d.?— She possibly got the balance. 1538. Did she in the last transaction sign for £9, whereas she only received £1 7s. 0d., the rest being detailed in some form of bill—you cannot say that from your recollection?—No. 1539. You did not bring a copy of the account with you?—No. 1540. Is it usual if £6 15s. is borrowed that you charge £9?—Yes. 1541. How is it repayable?—At £1 16s. per month or 4s. in the £. 1542. How many months?—Until it is paid. 1543. Is it repayable then within five months?—Yes. 1544. The woman gets £6 15s. in cash and, in the five months, she pays as interest a sum of £2 5s. 0d.—is there anybody in your firm who could calculate what rate per cent. that is?—If I asked Mrs. Morris she would tell me. 1545. Could you yourself give us any idea?—No. 1546. You would not know whether it was 20, 40, 60, 100, 120 or 133 per cent? —I make it 33 per cent. myself. I am just counting it roughly. I am not sure. I have never made it up. 1547. I am afraid your methods of calculation are peculiar to Abbey Street? —You would be surprised to know how long we have to wait. We might have to wait three years for it. 1548. You would be astonished to find that the rate of interest would be nearer to 133 per cent. than to 33 per cent.?— The way you calculate it, yes. We give the money and we may never get it back. 1549. Deputy Little.—You are Secretary to this Company?—Yes. 1550. You did not bring any books with you?—No. 1551. Do you think that is a proper way to treat a serious Committee like this. In an enquiry of this kind it is impossible to ascertain the facts except everything is authoritatively put before the Committee and the books produced? —I could have brought the books with me this morning. 1552. Would not Mrs. Morris herself come here to give evidence?—She could not come this morning. 1553. Would you tell the Committee what is the system in your firm. Do you simply wait for clients to come in, or do you send people out looking for people to whom you could give loans and do you send out people collecting the money?—No. 1554. Do any of the persons attached to the staff or the members of the firm go out and collect money?—Yes, to suit the convenience of customers sometimes, when people are not able to come in. In such cases, we send collectors. We would send out one of the girls. 1555. Do collectors go out to those people?—Yes, if it was the wish of the customer. 1556. Had anybody any idea that these loans were connected with one person— that there was one person really behind them?—Do you mean in other money loans? 1557. There was no one in the firm had any idea that there was one person behind the obtaining of these loans?—No, we thought that Mrs. K. was far too sensible for that. We gave it to the two ladies because we thought they were as good as she was. 1558. Deputy Briscoe.—You knew this lady personally yourself?—I did. 1559. Would it be wrong for her to have stated that she asked you not to inform her husband about this transaction?— Yes, she did; she said she did not want him to know. 1560. Therefore, in this case, you lent money to this married woman without the knowledge of her husband. You agreed, in fact, not to let the husband know—you agreed to a certain extent that she was to deceive her husband?—She said she had private means herself. 1561. You took no means of finding that out—you took her word for it?—Yes. 1562. You say that the other ladies got money on her recommendation? Did she ever pay the money for the other ladies? —Her little girl brought it in. 1563. You did not take it from that that she was paying this money for herself?—No, because several customers oblige their neighbours by bringing in money for them. 1564. Did you ever call to her house?— I did once. 1565. Did anybody else?—Mrs. Morris called on her. 1566. Was not that going beyond the contract?—Well, when she did not come in to pay up we had to go to her. 1567. Therefore, her husband would find out about the loan?—Yes, possibly. 1568. You did not think there would be any danger, if you called to the house, of her husband asking what you were calling for?—No. 1569. You did not threaten to have her arrested for having got money under false pretences?—We did not know it until she told us herself. 1570. You do not know that some lady called to the house and said that she would have her arrested?—No. 1571. Mrs. Morris never threatened her?—No. 1572. Deputy Doyle.—You have done business with Mrs. A——we will call her that—and you stated already that she introduced to you two other ladies; we will call them B and C?—Yes. 1573. It is the opinion of the Committee, I think that these three transactions are just one transaction with Mrs. K——. What security have you to look to when you complain, as you did a moment ago, that it takes a long time to get back your money—what inquiries did you make to find if B and C were as decent as A?— Mrs. B—— is a nurse, and she is earning a living. She was able to pay it back. 1574. Is that sufficient security?—Yes, for a small loan. 1575. Would you consider £9 and £5 and the second £5 small loans?—These were loans given in July, August and October. Were there any other loans got at the particular date referred to in which these ladies were introduced by Mrs. K——?— Not to my knowledge. 1576. Have you not already admitted that this lady introduced the other two, and that each got different loans?—Yes, on two different dates. 1577. But you are after saying that they were introduced on one particular date?—I do not think that I made any particular statement of that kind. They were introduced by Mrs. K——. 1578. You said they got loans in their own names?—Certainly, but not on the one day. 1579. Is it incorrect to say that they were all intended for one person?—We did not know anything about Mrs. K—— getting them. 1580. You deny that?—Yes, we deny it. 1581. But it has been already stated here?—I am telling the truth. 1582. Deputy Little.—Have you got a list of the questions you always ask your clients?—Yes, on application. 1583. Have you got that form?—It is not a form; it is just a book. 1584. Could you mention to the Committee what those questions are?—The name and address; the husband’s name, and where he is employed. 1585. Do you ask whether the wife is willing or unwilling that the husband should know?—Generally, the husband comes in. This happens to be one of the cases where, unfortunately, he did not. 1586. Do you send out anybody to make independent inquiries as to whether or not the statement is correct?—Yes, we telephone to the man. 1587. If he has not any telephone, have you any people whom you send out to find out whether the clients are in a position to pay back these loans?—Yes, we make sure as to whether or not they are able to pay. 1588. Deputy Briscoe.—Could you say where Mrs. McC—— lives?—7 Lower Mountpleasant Avenue. 1589. Where does Mrs. M—— live?—12 Chelmsford Road. 1590. Where does Mrs. K—— live?—I could not tell you where Nurse K. lives. 1591. Would you be surprised to know that the same address is on the three different cards?—That must be due to some carelessness in the way they were written up. 1592. Do you know that these people are put down as living at the very same address?—They might be written down that way in the cards. 1593. Do they live in the same place?— They do not. 1594. Then how would you know where they live?—When writing on the cards we never bother. It is in the book that they are put down properly. One of the girls wrote the addresses on the cards. 1595. Deputy Wolfe.—These cards are filled in in the Office?—They are. The customer takes them in every time a payment is made. 1596. Chairman.—What steps did you take to recover the money?—Mr. K—— made some arrangement with Mrs. M——. 1597. Deputy Briscoe.—For all three loans?—No. Nurse Mc——came in and paid her own. Mrs. M—— did not make any arrangements. 1598. Is Mr. K—— making arrangements to pay that?—I do not know. Miss Bridget Boggan called and examined.1599. Chairman.—Are you in the employment of M. Mofsovitz, 7 Trinity Street, Dublin?—No. 1600. What firm do you represent?— S. Mofsovitz of 34 Exchequer Street, Dublin. 1601. Is there any relationship between S. Mofsovitz, of 34 Exchequer Street, and M. Mofsovitz, of 7 Trinity Street?—Am I supposed to deal with 7 Trinity Street? I do not belong to there. 1602. We will not press you to answer. If you were sent here to refuse to answer questions you can retire. You can decline to answer questions if you wish. Your evidence is absolutely voluntary. If your instructions are to refuse to answer you are quite right to carry them out?— I belong to 34 Exchequer Street, and I have nothing to do with Trinity Street. 1603. Is there any relationship between S. Mofsovitz and M. Mofsovitz?—I believe there is a relationship. 1604. Tell the Committee what it is, or is it so mysterious that it is not to be divulged?—I think they are husband and wife. 1605. You are not quite sure that they are in fact married?—I know they are husband and wife. 1606. Are you with the husband or the wife?—With S. Mofsovitz, the husband. 1607. And they carry on business as two separate establishments in two separate streets?—Yes. 1608. Are there any trade relationships between the two firms?—None whatsoever. 1609. S. Mofsovitz would not ask M. Mofsovitz whether so-and-so was doing business with her or vice versa?—It is not usual; we do not usually do that. 1610. You do not usually make inquiry one from the other?—No. 1611. To all outward appearances they are different firms?—Two separate places. 1612. They are separate places, and they are distinct except as regards the name and the fact that the people live together?—Yes. 1613. Both firms appear to have had dealings with the lady who has been referred to here. How much did you lend her?—£7. She has had previous loans from us. 1614. What was the original loan?—She got £7 on the last loan. 1615. What was the first loan?—Also £7. 1616. At one time did the £7 grow to £14?—Yes. 1617. How much cash did this lady get from you from first to last?—She got three loans of £14 and three of £7. 1618. How much cash did she get?— For every £14 loan we gave her £10. She got three £10 loans. 1619. That is £30 in cash?—Yes. The loan was £14, and she got £10 cash. 1620. How much does she owe now?— £7. 1621. How much did she pay back on previous loans?—They were all cleared up. 1622. Can you give us the date when the transactions started?—The first transaction started about 1928. 1623. How much has she paid you in cash since 1928?—I suppose about £50, roughly. 1624. Deputy Briscoe.—I understood that at first there were three £14 loans and three £7 loans?—Yes. 1625. Chairman.—How much cash did you give her from first to last?—She got three loans of £14 and three loans of £7. 1626. Deputy Wolfe.—In actual cash how much did she get?—She got three ten pounds and three five pounds. 1627. Chairman.—How much has she paid back?—She has paid three loans of £14 and two of £7. 1628. Deputy Wolfe.—Will she be clear when the £7 is paid in?—Yes, absolutely clear. 1629. Chairman.—The position is that she got in cash three loans of £10 and three loans of £5?—Yes. 1630. And she signed promissory notes for £63?—The loans were individual. She did not get all the money together in a lump sum in her hands. 1631. You have not brought in particulars of the transactions?—No, I did not know what I was to bring. 1632. Were you told not to bring them? —No, I was not. 1633. How are the loans of £14 payable?—£2 10s. monthly. 1634. That would not work out evenly? —In the end there would be something like £2 to finish up the loan. 1635. Have you any idea as to the rate per cent?—I never made it up. 1636. Were you never curious enough to try to calculate it?—I thought it was about 48 per cent. 1637. If I pay back £7 in six months at the rate you mention, what do you think the percentage would be?—About 48 per cent. 1638. Do you ever communicate with these ladies’ husbands when you are lending money?—Yes, in some cases. 1639. Do you get the lady’s consent?— Yes. 1640. You would not write to her husband without her consent?—No. 1641. When the bill becomes due and is unpaid do you write to the husband? —We do not. 1642. Do you send anybody to call on him?—When the payment is due and the borrower does not come into the office and does not send any communication as to why he has not called we usually call. 1643. You call on the husband?—No. 1644. Do you inform the husband in any circumstances?—No. 1645. You never try to get payment directly or indirectly from the husband on the wife’s promissory note?—We never do. 1646. There is no doubt about that?— So far as I know there is not. 1647. Deputy Briscoe.—Are we to take it that each of these transactions was separate and that in no case was there a balance due from the old loan before the new one was given?—No, but I would not be quite sure about that. 1648. The Chairman asked you how many loans there were in this particular case and you made it clear that there were six different transactions?—Exactly. 1649. When you say that each was cleared up might not the end of the old loan be cleared up out of part of the new loan?—Her last payment might be due when the new loan was made. 1650. And you deduct the amount of that payment?—No, we never deduct, but she would have to clear off her old account. 1651. If there was a balance due and the woman applied for a new loan you would expect her to pay you what was due on the old loan?—In this case her last payment would be her last monthly payment and so she would be cleared off. 1652. All these loans were kept straight and she was quite a good client?—Yes, quite a respectable woman we always thought, and think so still. 1653. You would think otherwise if she had these six transactions, and if she was not quite clean about them?—Yes. 1654. You had nothing to do with the first transaction?—No. 1655. She was quite clean in the first transaction as in the second, third, fourth and fifth?—Yes. 1656. Deputy Little.—Why did Mr. S. Mofsovitz not come himself to give evidence?—He suffers from bronchitis, at this time of the year, and I believe he is not quite well at present. 1657. Why did he not send you with the books?—He may not have considered it necessary. 1658. He did not consider the inquiry serious enough?—Oh, I am sure he did consider it serious enough. 1659. Do you think it fair to yourself or the committee that anybody less than the principal should come, or else that whoever came should bring the books with him?—I am answering any questions asked quite clearly. Chairman.—It is not your fault. 1660. Deputy Little.—Does your firm deal with other firms also lending money? Do clients come to you from another firm or do you send clients to other firms?— Not that I am aware of. 1661. There might be arrangements between members of firms without your knowing anything about it?—We do not usually look for information from other firms. 1662. But there might be an arrangement between your firm and a member of the Mofsovitz firm in Trinity Street without your knowing anything about it? —There might be. 1663. It could be done without your knowledge?—It could. 1664. When people come for loans do you ask what is the reason why they are getting the money?—No, they very seldom tell us what they are going to do with the money or what they want it for. 1665. Have you a list of questions that you ask?—Yes. 1666. You could mention what they are?—We usually ask when they make application for their names and addresses, if they are householders, and if they are married, and then they ask us will anyone call to interview them. I tell them “yes,” that Mr. Mofsovitz will call. 1667. He has to make a direct call?— It is necessary to call to find out where the people live. We could not take their word for it. 1668. Do you find out if there is sufficient wealth, if I may say so, to meet the loans?—Well, yes. 1669. They never mention the particular emergency or the reason why they get the loan?—No, they do not usually tell us. 1670. You do not know whether they are making a practice of living through the means of loans?—Oh, no, we never ask that question. 1671. Chairman.—Is there anybody here from Mr. Mofsovitz, of 7 Trinity Street? 1672. Mr. Thomas Finucane (Commercial Union Loan and Discount Company, Ltd., 57 Middle Abbey Street).—No, sir. 1673. Chairman.—Is there anyone here from Mrs. Eppel, 6 Emorville Avenue?— No. 1674. Anyone here from Mr. A. Sevitt, 12 Harcourt Road?—No, sir. 1675. Anyone from Mr. Elkinson, 48 Aungier St.; Mr. Bell, Charlemont Ave., or Mr. Toohey, Fownes St.?—No, sir. I understand Mr. Toohey is on a jury. 1676. Chairman.—There is a letter from Mr. Toohey, in which he says:— “In reply to yours of the 26th ult., I am sorry I will not be able to attend your meeting, Thursday next, as I am on the jury starting to-morrow (Tuesday), my number on the Jury List being 314. “I have been informed that letter K refers to (gives name), of Sollymount Avenue, who obtained a sum of £5, Feb., 1929, and paid off same and got another loan of £5, December, 1929, and has paid £2 8s. 6d., which leaves a balance due of £2 11s. 6d. I wish to state my usual practice. I don’t issue any loans to married women without their husband signing, except in some cases where I am satisfied that the wife has got some value in her own rights, and it seems in this case Mrs. K—— who is a very capable woman, must have satisfied me in this respect. I see the statement made by Mr. K—— that his wife had dealings with twelve people. Of course, no one could stop her, and could not keep watching with how many a client may deal if they are so clever to keep secrets from one another. I have had occasion to call several times to her house different days and hours, but never met any, and at hours which would be likely for her husband to be inside. “With these few remarks I beg to remain,—Yours faithfully, “P. Toohey.” Is Mr. Stein, who keeps a furniture shop, represented? Mr. Finucane.—No. 1677. Deputy Briscoe.—May I ask Mr. Finucane a question relating to this Bill. You are aware, Mr. Finucane, that in the proposed Bill there is a clause inserted to make it illegal, and to make the transactions null and void, between moneylenders and married women unless the husband’s consent is there?—Yes. 1678. Do you object to that clause?— Not in the least. 1679. Are you aware that serious objections have been made against it?—Yes, but I see no objection unless in the case of a married woman who has a separate estate. 1680. But outside that?—I do not think it is fair at all to do business with a married woman without the husband’s consent. 1681. You think the woman should be allowed to borrow?—Yes, if she is a respectable woman and has her husband’s consent. 1682. You agree that the bigger men in the moneylending, with business in large finance, and that they carry on their business well after the manner of banking, would not object, but that in the case of the smaller moneylender who lends to people in tenements and so forth, they would object to that clause?—I quite agree. There are many hawkers and lenders. The city of Dublin is stocked with them. 1683. You agree with the Bill controlling and regulating them?—Yes. 1684. You have authority from your firm to say that?—I am speaking personally. I am not representing my firm. I am speaking as a manager, and I would not give loans to a married woman without her husband’s consent, but, of course, the real trouble in these instances is with the hawkers and lenders. 1685. One of the witnesses here to-day does not seem to approve of the clause prohibiting lending to married women without the knowledge of their husbands? —The young ladies examined here this morning feel their position keenly. It was more or less sprung upon them. 1686. Deputy Wolfe.—Are you representing them also?—No, I am speaking personally. 1687. Chairman.—We have had here in Mr. Toohey’s letter the statement that a married lady had dealings with twelve different moneylenders and so far as we have been able to get evidence no knowledge of these twelve different transactions was communicated to her husband?—I appreciate that point. 1688. Deputy Briscoe.—You need not answer this question if you do not like?— I do not want to conceal anything. 1689. Have you knowledge of a collection that was being made during the last couple of months for the purpose of raising a certain sum of money to be used by a certain group of moneylenders?— I have unofficial knowledge. 1690. You are aware that I was personally approached and asked to accept a certain sum of money?—I have no knowledge of it. 1691. You are aware that a collection was made?—I had unofficial knowledge that a collection was made. For what purpose it was made I do not know. I am only manager of the firm and I do not enjoy the confidence of the Moneylenders’ Association. I am outside their ring. It did put it to them that it was their business to come before the Committee. 1692. You heard some rumours that there was a collection being made for some purpose?—I did not know for what designs the collection was being made. I took it that possibly it was to finance any action the moneylenders desired to take for the purpose of attacking the Moneylenders’ Bill, but that it had any ulterior motive I did not know. 1693. Deputy Briscoe.—I should like to put it on record that a collection was made and a certain sum of money was raised and that indirectly I was offered this money—— Chairman.—Apparently you are a very lucky man. Deputy Briscoe.—To do what I liked with it. I made certain inquiries and had certain action taken, with the result that the money has been returned to the persons from whom it was collected, because some of them may have thought, as the witness thought, that it was to engage legal help to fight the Bill, but, in fact, it was offered to me as a bribe. Witness.—They did not know the metal you are made of. They did not know you as long as I know you. 1694. Chairman.—I may say that even if some moneylenders were guilty of that grave and gross impropriety it will not prejudice the general body. Witness.—I am sure of that. 1695. Chairman.—We will try to do what we conceive to be our duty regardless of the fact that there were people who, apparently, were guilty of the very gross impropriety of approaching Deputy Briscoe, either directly or indirectly, or any Deputy either on the Committee or in the House. They will not be prejudiced by that. Witness.—I hope you will understand that I in no way was associated with this thing. I am entirely outside the pale, for reasons which, I think, will be perfectly obvious. It is a pity that Deputy Briscoe was not more specific in his allegations. I should like him to bring it out, but that is a matter for himself. I, as a humble manager of a moneylending firm, had nothing to do with it, good, bad or indifferent. 1696. Deputy Briscoe.—I want to make it clear that when this matter came to my knowledge no offer had been made to me in a direct manner. If it had, I would certainly have dealt with it rather severely. As it was more indirect, and I was approached in a very judicious way I had the matter dealt with. Witness.—I fail to appreciate the mentality of men who did such a thing. I have been over- sixteen years in the moneylending business, and I try to keep as near as I possibly can to doing everything in a regular and above board manner. I cannot understand they should shirk coming before the Committee, why they should not come here and say, “There are our ledgers; pick out any account you like and let us examine it.” 1697. Chairman.—You have never heard of moneylenders on any other occasion, having a collection for charity?—No, I have not. You will understand that I am not in their confidence. Deputy Briscoe.—Neither am I. Witness.—I should like to make the position clear. I cannot understand why they did not come forward and put their cards on the table. The Witness withdrew. The Committee went into private session. |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
