Reports-Customers

Miscellaneous Reports:

Customers

FINANCE & GENERAL PURPOSES SUB-COMMITTEE: February 10th 1936

HOCKLEY BRANCH: OH 4231 - Joan M Homer

On the 12th December last the mother of the above depositor called at the Hockley Branch and stated the pass book had been lost. Steps were accordingly taken to stop payment on the account. On the 18th January a brother of the depositor called at the Bank, and stated the book had been found in the depositor's handbag, and that his sister denied having withdrawn any money from the account. The Manager requested the depositor to call and see him. She attended, along with her mother, on the 20th January, and again stated she did not sign a receipt for £1 on the 25th October and a receipt for £3 on the 22nd November.

The account was opened on the 17th October 1925 as a minor's account. On attaining the age of seven years a signature was obtained from the child, and a further signature was taken on the 22nd July 1932, both of which were signatures the depositor admitted making. On the 25th October 1935, when the first withdrawal was made, a further signature was obtained from the person who presented the pass book and stated she was the depositor.

On the 27th January I interviewed both mother and daughter, and ascertained that the daughter was fourteen years of age, and worked at Messrs Wilkinson & Riddell's. The mother said the pass book was kept by her in a box in the bedroom, and added that she had never allowed her daughter to draw money from the account. Mrs Homer noticed what she thought was the pass book in the depositor's handbag, and drew attention thereto. At first the girl said it was not the pass book, but on further examination it was found to be the pass book. That resulted in the brother going to the Bank to inform the Manager that the book had been found.

Both mother and daughter adhered to the statement that no money had been withdrawn from the account. I pointed out that it would be impossible for a girl to have a pass book in her handbag for practically a month without noticing the fact at some time or other. The girl replied that she had not placed the book in the handbag, and did not know the whereabouts of the pass book in the bedroom, and must have taken the same from the box, and if it was not the daughter herself, then it must be someone who has access to the house.

I called attention to the similarity of the handwriting on the 25th October and that of the 22nd July 1932, and advised the depositor that if she had received the money and signed the receipt she had better admit it, or if she was sheltering someone it would be better to be quite frank with me.

Despite the fact that the interviews lasted three quarters of an hour, I could not get an admission from the girl. I finally stated I would leave the matter over for a short time, to see whether they could themselves find the person who had made the withdrawals, but if they could not do so the matter would be placed in the hands of the Police. My view at the time was that the depositor did make the withdrawals, and that she gave the signature in October 1935. I consulted Chief Superintendent Baguley in an unofficial capacity, with a view to ascertaining his opinion, and he was of opinion that the person who gave the signature in 1932 also gave the one in 1935, which pinned the matter down to the depositor.

I have since received a letter from the depositor, stating that she has explained the situation to her intimate friends and those who have visited the house recently, but nothing had come to light in regard to the matter. She realises that if the guilty person is caught it will be serious for her, and although such person may deserve punishment, she does not wish anyone to come to harm on her account. She regrets her loss, but would like to know exactly what had happened, and how it was obtained from the Bank and by whom; and adds that if it is possible to clear the matter in any other way than placing it in the hands of the Police, she would be glad.

So far as the Bank is concerned, if the depositor still contends that the specimen signature given in 1935 is not her signature, but is prepared to give another signature and fresh receipts for the money withdrawn, the matter might be dropped, if the Committee think it advisable to take such a course. On the other hand, I think the help of the Police should be sought, and if it is then found that the depositor did withdraw the money, and will give fresh receipts, there need be no proceedings at Court. If, however, the Police find out that someone else obtained the money, then such person should be proceeded against.

272 RESOLVED:- That the foregoing report of the General Manager be approved, and that he be authorised to act in this case as suggested in the last paragraph of his report.

FINANCE & GENERAL PURPOSES SUB-COMMITTEE: February 10th 1936

HEAD OFFICE BRANCH: HO 32676 - A Gormley

On the 14th January last the prescribed form authorising the withdrawal of money by a third party was issued at the request of the depositor (A Gormley), who is residing at Ramsgate. The form provides for the name of the bearer being inserted, the signature of the depositor being witnessed, and the address and occupation of the witness being stated, and in accordance with Regulation No 49.

On the 24th January the form referred to was presented by Mr L J Gormley, who stated he was the son of the depositor, but as the form was incomplete it could not be accepted. The depositor had merely inserted the amount he wished to withdraw, signed his own name, and the son had signed the form as the person authorised to make the withdrawal.

The matter was explained to the son, and a suggestion made that he might address a letter to his father; also that as the latter was residing at Ramsgate a fresh form for payment being made by post could be used, and as the son stated his father desired to transfer the account to Lloyds the, Five Ways, Birmingham. that could be arranged. The son dictated a letter and signed the same, which was sent to the depositor, along with a letter written by the Assistant General Manager, explaining the matter. This brought forth a letter from the depositor dated the 1st February, together with the remittance-by-post form. The letter is a strongly worded complaint as regards the Bank's procedure, and the form bearing the name of the depositor is not witnessed properly completed in other respects, and on the back of such form the depositor has made some caustic remarks.

The Assistant General Manager conferred with the Chairman on the matter, and after doing so, addressed a letter to the depositor on the 3rd February explaining that he was unable to deal with the application to withdraw money without the authority of the Committee because the signature had not been attested, and that the matter would be brought to the notice of the Committee. In reply, the depositor wrote on the 4th February a further letter taking exception to the Bank's procedure and making threats to take the matter to a Court of Law. The Assistant General Manager again consulted the Chairman and also Councillor Martineau on the matter, and afterwards wrote to the depositor stating that the Committee would meet on Monday, when the matter would be placed before them.

The depositor apparently takes exception to having his signature witnessed and regards the procedure of the Bank as savouring of "red tape". The object, of course, of a witness is to prevent the payment of money to a wrong person, and although the man who attended at the Bank and stated he was the son of the depositor might be speaking truthfully, no-one at the Bank could identify him, and, in any case, we had no proof that Bank depositor actually signed the form, although the signature may be considered a good sample of the specimen signature held by the Bank.

The Committee of Management have power in cases where they think fit, to dispense with the attestation of a depositor, but such dispensation has been very sparingly given in this Bank and only on very definite corroboration that the signature was the signature of the depositor.

I consider the action taken by Bank Assistant General Manager in this case was perfectly correct and do not think the depositor has any justification for writing in the strain he has done.

The account of Mr Gormley is really a considerable nuisance to the Bank. He apparently receives a remittance of £8. 10. 0d. every month, which he places in the Bank and invariably withdraws the amount within a few days of it being deposited. The balance of his account at the end of the last six months has been as follows: July, £1; August, 9/1d; September, 8/2d; October, 7/3d; November, £8. 17. 3d; December, 6/2d. And last month £8. 16. 2d, which was to have been reduced by £8. 10. 0d.

I am of opinion that if the Committee should consider this a case where the attestation of a witness should be dispensed with and the sum transmitted by post to the depositor at Ramsgate, that it is one, in view of the nature of the letters received from the depositor, which should be dealt with under Regulation No 38, and that the depositor should be given one month's notice of the intention of the Corporation to close his account.

273 RESOLVED:- That the foregoing report of the General Manager be approved, and that, having regard to all the circumstances, the attestation of the signature of the depositor be dispended with, and the depositor given one month's notice of the intention of the Corporation to close his account.

FINANCE & GENERAL PURPOSES SUB-COMMITTEE: February 10th 1936

OLDBURY BRANCH: OY 915 - Mary Cartwright

On the 3rd September 1935 payment of £160 was made on a third-party form, and a further payment of £130 made on the 1st November 1935 in a similar way, the person signing as receiving the money in each case being F Gibson, and the witness to the signature being stated as E M Reed of 3 Breeds Place, Hastings, who was described as a doctor.

The depositor, when she opened her account at the Oldbury Branch in March 1932, gave a specimen of her signature, but on the two receipt forms referred to above no signature is given, a mark being made, and a certificate is given on the back of each receipt to the effect that the depositor was unable to write her name and had authorised the withdrawal of the sum in question. The signature to this certificate is given as E M Reed, also described as a doctor.

On the first occasion the Manager at the Oldbury Branch was told by the man Gibson that Miss Cartwright was in hospital suffering from gangrene, and that only through the skill and attention of the nurses and doctors had it been possible to avoid her right hand being amputated, and the Manager accepted the explanation in view of the certificate given by the person described as E M Reed.

On the second occasion Gibson stated that Miss Cartwright was improving but was in a very bad mental condition as a result of her serious illness and that she had asked him to obtain a further sum of money from her account and take it to her.

Up to this point the Manager was under the impression that Gibson was employed by Miss Cartwright as a kind of chauffeur-gardener, and it was known in the district of Brierley Hill that he was either living at the house at Brierley Hill or was frequently in attendance there, and from statements made by a brother of Miss Cartwright it was known that she and Gibson had been away together at different periods. The Manager, however, felt a little concerned at the second withdrawal and addressed a letter to Dr Reed at the address given, which came back through the post marked "unknown". The Manager then thought it desirable to consult Head Office and the case was brought to my notice.

I had the Medical Register searched but could not discover any doctor of the name given on the withdrawal form, and I then instructed the Assistant General Manager to visit Belbroughton where a brother of Miss Cartwright is employed as a school teacher, with a view to ascertaining her whereabouts. This brother could not throw any light as to her whereabouts but was very anxious to know as he had not heard anything of his sister for some considerable time.

On the second occasion when Gibson attended at Oldbury Branch and withdrew the money he mentioned that it was probable Miss Cartwright might not be returning to live at Brierley Hill and might wish to close her account, in which case he would bring her to the Branch in his car so that she could give the necessary instructions herself.

I than placed the facts before the Chairman so far as I had been able to ascertain same and suggested that I should informally confer with Chief Superintendent Baguley, who might perhaps be able to get some additional information for me, and the Chairman concurred.

Superintendent Baguley got in touch with the Police at Brierley Hill and ascertained the fact that Gibson was well-known in the neighbourhood and that he had recently paid the rates on the house owned by Miss Cartwright. Superintendent Baguley could not, however, take the case in hand because if an offence had been committed it was in the area of the Worcestershire Police and the case was further complicated by the fact that Miss Cartwright was a resident of Brierley Hill, which is in the area of the Staffordshire Police. Both Superintendent Baguley and myself were, however, convinced that someone was operating Miss Cartwright's account illegally, but whether Gibson was the real culprit or whether he was really acting for Miss Cartwright, it was difficult to say at that stage. I formed the opinion, however, that in view of Gibson's last statement to the Manager at Oldbury Branch and the fact that he had already obtained two sums of money, that he would in all probability attempt a third withdrawal, and I therefore suggested to the Chairman that nothing further should be done in the way of making enquiries either by the Police or the Bank, and that we should wait until he put in another appearance. I also decided that the two Officers at Oldbury Branch should not be removed but should remain at their posts and should treat Gibson, if he called, in quite a friendly manner so as not to give rise to any suspicion, and if he made an application for the withdrawal of money a definite day and time should be fixed when Gibson should attend to receive the money.

On the 15th January Gibson appeared at Oldbury Branch and gave notice to withdraw the sum of £150 from Miss Cartwright's account and was given a third-party from to be completed in the usual way, and it was arranged that he should attend at Oldbury Branch on the 20th January at 11:30am or thereabouts. On this occasion Gibson told the Manager at Oldbury Branch, who enquired as to Miss Cartwright's health, that she had had the middle finger of her right hand amputated and that she was still in a very low mental state.

I then got in touch with Chief Superintendent Baguley and accompanied him to the Superintendent of Police at Oldbury, to whom I explained the circumstances of the case and my suspicions. I arranged that I would at Oldbury Branch in order to deal with Gibson myself when he attended at the counter and asked that the Police should be close in attendance. The Superintendent arranged that a Plain-Clothes Officer should be inside the Bank premises but not in view, and another Plain-Clothes Officer outside the premises, ready to come inside the Bank on receiving a signal from his colleague. It was also arranged that Chief Superintendent Baguley should be at Oldbury Police Station in company with the Superintendent of Police at Oldbury, waiting developments.

At 11:40am Gibson put in an appearance and while the Manager was talking to him, the Assistant came into the messroom to acquaint me of the fact. I then advanced to the counter and asked Gibson if the mark on the form, which he had then presented, had been made by Miss Cartwright and if the mark had been witnessed by Dr Reed, to which he replied in the affirmative, I asked how Miss Cartwright was progressing, and he repeated the statement he had made to the Manager about the removal of a finger. I asked where Miss Cartwright actually was and he said "in the nursing home at Breeds Place, Hastings". I asked if Dr Reed was at that particular nursing home, and he replied "yes". I then drew his attention to the two previous receipt forms and asked whether he had actually seen Miss Cartwright make her mark on same and also Dr Reed witness the mark. He stated that so far as the first mark was concerned he had seen Miss Cartwright make her mark, and had also seen Dr Reed sign his name and give the certificate on the back, but as regards the second form he had not seen either the mark made by Miss Cartwright or the certificate given on the back, as the form had been sent to him by post at Brierley Hill. I then asked if he was telling the truth with regard to Dr Reed living at Breeds Place, Hastings, and he said "yes", when I told him that in the course of our ordinary business we had addressed a communication to Dr Reed at that place and the envelope had come back through the post marked "unknown". Gibson said he could not understand that because Dr Reed was there, and I seemed to be implying doubt as to his honesty and straightforwardness. I told him I was not satisfied with his explanation and that I could not allow him to receive any further money from the account of Miss Cartwright; also that I should retain the pass book and the form he had that morning presented. He was inclined to become abusive and questioned my right to suspect his honesty, and I then told him definitely that I did not believe the tale he had told that morning or on the previous occasions, and that I must hand him over to the Police Officer, who had then stepped forward, and he must make any further explanations to the Officer. Two Police Officers took Gibson on one side and requested him to accompany them to the Police Station.

For nearly two hours the Superintendent of Police at Oldbury and Chief Superintendent Baguley had the man under examination and telephonic communication was established with Hastings, with the result that it transpired there was no Dr Reed at Breeds Place; that the address given, viz 3 Breeds Place, was an ordinary lodging house where Gibson and Miss Cartwright had stayed, and that Miss Cartwright was an inmate of a Mental Hospital where she had been since May last. The Medical Superintendent of the Mental Hospital is Dr Benjamin Reid, who stated he could not remember having signed any document in respect of Miss Cartwright or given any certificate. The name given on the withdrawal form was "E M Reed, MD".

At the conclusion of the examination, the Superintendent of Police at Oldbury decided to charge Gibson with attempting to obtain £150 from the Bank by false pretences, and took him into custody. Gibson was duly brought before the Magistrates and remanded, and a second remand was also obtained, but the case is to be heard on Wednesday, the 12th February.

In the meantime the Police made further enquiries at Hastings and found that practically all the statements made by Gibson were untrue, and I understand Gibson finally admitted to the Superintendent of Police at Oldbury that he had wrongly obtained the money and spent it, some portion in respect of the maintenance of Miss Cartwright at the Mental Hospital and in rates on the house at Brierley Hill, etc, and that he had been gambling and the rest of the money had gone in that way.

The Police Authorities came to the conclusion that the case was more serious than merely one of attempting to obtain money under false pretences, that it would be desirable for the prosecution to be directed by the Bank and a Solicitor or Barrister engaged. I conferred with Mr Minshull, the Deputy Town Clerk, who agreed that that would be the course to take, and he promised to have a talk with the Town Clerk on the matter, when it was finally arranged that Mr Donald Hurst should be briefed to take the case on behalf of the Bank.

At a later date, when this case is finished, I will submit a further report from an administrative point of view, because there are points which have arisen in connection with the case which I think should be considered by the Committee.

J P Hilton.

February 10th 1936.

270 RESOLVED:- That the foregoing report of the General Manager be approved, and that the action taken in arranging for the prosecution of the man Gibson and the briefing of Mr Donald Hurst to take the case on behalf of the Bank be confirmed, and that the Town Clerk and General Manager be instructed to take any further necessary steps to support the case of the Bank at the hearing.

NOTE: the Finance and General Purposes Sub-Committee were informed on June 8th 1936 that the accused had been found guilty and sentenced to fifteen months' imprisonment.

BACK TO THE TOP

Continued ....