A money-lender of Cambridge has been amerced by a jury
in £100 damages, under rather unusual circumstances. He lends money, at immense interest, to undergraduates, and lent some to Mr. F. H. Linklater, a young man then of twenty years of age. He was warned by Mr. Linklater's father that he would pay no such debts for his son, but nevertheless lent him more money, and on the father's refusal to pay, prosecuted the son for obtaining money under false pretences. The charge was dismissed by the magistrates, and Mr. Linklater then brought an action for malicious prosecution. There was the usual amount of hard - swearing, the defendant contending that Mr. Linklater, junior—a very weak young man, who, after pro- mising not to borrow, borrowed immediately—had misrepre- sented his age ; but the jury gave a verdict for the plaintiff, with £100 damages. In the conflict of evidence the jury were probably in the right, and their decision was certainly in the public interest. Tradesmen are often victimised by the plea of nonage, but a pro- fessional money-lender is an expert, and if he could lend money to boys, after being warned by their relatives, at 75 per cent., and then imprison them by swearing that they had over- stated their ages, the law would give impunity to " sharping." The money-lender ca?not be " done" unless be pleases, for he can insist on the age being stated in writing as a condition of his loan.
Previous page
