Parent and Child. Claim by father to deposits of children as being his property. John Honeyman, father of the depositors Jane Honeyman (now Haines) and Beatrice Honeyman, claims to be entitled to their deposits. His evidence is that he was in complete ignorance of the deposits till August last when, during the serious illness of his wife, Margaret Honeyman, the deposit books were produced to him by another of his daughters. These books, together with the deposit books belonging to three other daughters and two sons, had always been kept in the custody of Margaret Honeyman and the applicant deposes that the accounts were opened without his knowledge and that all the deposits were made by his wife out of moneys saved from housekeeping. He knew she was saving money but thought she was saving it in an account in her own name for their joint benefit. After the discovery of the accounts three of the daughters and one of the sons voluntarily transferred their accounts to the applicant, but the three daughters retained 501. each with the applicant's consent. The other son was and is abroad. Jane and Beatrice, however, refused to transfer. The decision of the case, in my opinion, rests almost entirely on the evidence of the wife. She is bedfast and obviously in a dangerous state of health, but her memory shows no signs of failure. Her evidence was as clear and definite as it could possibly be. According to her the accounts were opened originally by transfers from the school penny bank, and she added amounts from time to time from the housekeeping savings, sometimes in regular small amounts, sometimes in larger sums which she had collected over a period. A small portion at the beginning may have come from money that belonged to her herself. The reason why she put the money in the children's accounts was that they happened to be in existence and she had no account of her own. She intended later on to ask the children to withdraw the deposits and place them in an account in her own name or in the names of herself and her husband. She did not care which account she put the money into, but put it into the account the deposit book of which happened to come first out of the bag in which she kept the books. The depositors never saved any of the money nor did any of it belong to them for any other reason, though Beatrice for a few months contributed 128. a week to the housekeeping when she was at home. Her husband did not know of the existence of the accounts. I am satisfied that this admirable woman's evidence can be accepted. without hesitation, and after seeing her I do not feel so much surprised as I did that it should have been possible to save over 2,000l. and bring up a family of 12 children out of wages which did not exceed 41. per week up to the war and 71. 10s. per week during the war. But apart from the full credence I am disposed to grant to this witness, there is nothing, it seems to me, in the documents or other evidence that materially contradicts her. Her explanation alone, I think, Parent and Child. really explains the great difference in the amount of the accounts which are, or were at the material times, 1337. and 1537. in the case of the sons and 246l., 2541., 2661., 4521. and 4547. in the case of the daughters. If the deposits had been intended as portions for the children these inequalities are most improbable, particularly when we find that a son's portion in one case is less than one-third of those of two of the daughters. Her evidence also explains how it is that the whole of the savings of this thrifty family down to 1915 were placed in the names of the children and not wholly or to a considerable extent in the names of the parents or one of them. Again, the children, who were called, including Mrs. Haines, agreed that whenever a withdrawal was wanted by their mother they went with her to the bank and handed the sum withdrawn to her to use as she wished. Mrs. Haines told us of a variation in this procedure in the case of a sum of 61. withdrawn from her account when she was 24 to pay her father's initiation fee into Freemasonry. She deposed that in this case, after a violent scene with her mother, her father insisted on her going to withdraw the money. But this really does not consititute an exception. In this case, too, it was the mother who was regarded as the person who had to be first approached with a view to withdrawal. The only evidence given in contradiction of the mother's evidence as to her intention in making the deposits was that of Mrs. Haines to the effect that her mother once told her that the money was for the children's own use for a rainy day, and that it would come in handy instead of insurance; and that of Beatrice Honeyman that she had always understood that her mother was making the deposits for her sole benefit and had told her and Jane more than once that she was paying in the money to insure their future. I prefer the mother's evidence, particularly in view of the fact that, apart from the masonic episode, on no less than 32 occasions Jane withdrew money at her mother's request and handed it over to her without demur. There is one other matter to which I should perhaps refer. Counsel argued that the father must have known of the existence of these accounts and of their contents and his failure to claim caused the Statute of Limitations to run against him but, holding as I do that the depositors held their deposits as trustees, I do not think this argument is valid. I am of opinion, therefore, that the claim succeeds but, in the circumstances, I think the depositors were reasonably entitled to await a legal decision on the matter, and, as a corollary, I do not see why they should each lose the sum of 50l. which their father would undoubtedly have given them if they had transferred to him at once. There might perhaps be some question whether the deposits should be transferred to the applicant or to his wife, but, as the applicant has no objection and the depositors obviously would prefer it, I shall order a transfer to the wife. The result consequently is that the deposits, less 50l. and the depositor's costs, which I assess at 81. 8s., will in each case be transferred to Mrs. Honeyman, subject to the deduction of the Treasury fees and my expenses. Award that 581. 88. be retained in the account of Jane Honeyman and in the account of Beatrice Honeyman respectively, and the respective balances be withdrawn from the said accounts, and that out of such Parent and Child. balances the Treasury fees of 81. for this award and 31. 3s. for the hearing of the case elsewhere than in London and 5l. 4s. 4d. for his expenses be paid to the Chief Registrar of Friendly Societies and the remainder be transferred to an account in the name of Margaret Honeyman, 36, River Avon Street, Lodge Lane, Liverpool. Counsel for Jane Honeyman: W. Clothier, instructed by William Rudd & Co., Liverpool. Counsel for Beatrice Honeyman: A. McN. Hamilton, instructed by R. J. Jones, Sephton Rollo & Farmer, Liverpool. Withdrawal, Disputed. Claim to reinstatement of deposits withdrawn by forgery. Hearing, 17th March; Award, 18th March. The reinstatement of certain deposits was claimed by the depositor in the circumstances set out in the following declaration : "In September, 1922, I was asked by my friend H. Smith for a loan of 10., I lent him 101. (81. in gold and 21. in notes), which he repaid with 11. interest, according to promise. In February, 1922, he asked me for a loan of 271. It not being convenient for me to go to the bank 3 miles away, I was persuaded by my friend, whom I trusted, to give him my passbook and my signature on a slip of paper; the latter he obtained on the pretext that he knew the cashier personally and it would be paid all right. Smith signed a withdrawal form and 271. was paid to him which he repaid with 37. interest, according to promise. On 14th April Smith again desired to borrow 101., promising to pay me 117. in 7 days' time. I again let him have my passbook and he withdrew 251. on that date, 5l. on 18th April, 251. on 21st April, 31. 10s. on 25th April-581. 10s. in all-leaving a balance of a few shillings; these sums were withdrawn without my knowledge as Smith had possession of my passbook during this time and it was some days later before I was able to get it, which I did from his mother who searched his things for it. I reported these withdrawals to the police. proceedings were taken and Smith sentenced to six months' imprisonment. On one of the above withdrawals the initials were incorrect. Smith's attention was drawn to it and he was allowed to correct it. In view of the afore-mentioned particulars I think I am entitled to some consideration from the bank as there has apparently been some slackness in scrutinising the signatures on these occasions." Smith was sentenced to 6 months' hard labour in July, 1923. The Bank submitted that there was considerable contributory negligence on the part of the depositor in having handed the deposit book, which contained a specimen signature, to Smith early in April and leaving it with him till the following July. The Chief Registrar held that it was unnecessary for him to weigh the quantity of negligence, if any, displayed by the depositor and the Bank respectively, as the only special protection enjoyed by the Bank was that conferred by Reg. 27 of the Trustee Savings Banks Regulations, 1900, which indemnifies the trustees when any payment is made or act Withdrawal, Disputed. done by the trustees in accordance with the Savings Banks Acts, and the statutory regulations and the rules of the Bank. He held that in this case the section did not protect the trustees because Rule 23 of the Bank's rules provided that "depositors may receive (either personally or through the bearer of an order duly executed by the depositor in a form obtainable at the Bank) the whole or any part of their deposits," and the payments in this case had been made to a person who was not the depositor in person and who did not bear an order executed by the depositor. Award that the account be credited with 251. as on 14th April, 51. as on 18th April, 25l. as on 21st April and 37. 10s. as on 25th April 1923, and that the Treasury fee be paid out of the deposits. Claim to reinstatement of deposits withdrawn by forgery. The depositor, now the wife of one Jameson, claimed to be recredited with the sum of 100l., withdrawn from her account on 3rd March 1924. Her husband had been sentenced to two months' hard labour for forgery in connection with the withdrawal and the bank did not deny liability. Award, by consent of the Bank, for payment of the Treasury fee out of the deposits and that the sum of 1001. be replaced in the account as on 3rd March 1924. Claim by depositor for reinstatement of 16 withdrawals of 11. each alleged to have been made by forged signatures. Queenie Hill. Post Office Savings Bank, 19s. 5d. Hearings, 13th 20th October; Award, 29th October. This case was heard in London and adjourned to St. Leonards in order that the evidence of the Post Office witnesses might be taken. The depositor claimed that 16 withdrawals each of 17. made during 1923 had not been made by her. Her evidence was that the book was kept with the other books of the family on the top of a cabinet behind the counter of her father's shop. Her mother used to collect their savings and she herself used to take them and put them in. The last such entry in her book was on 2nd September 1922. She drew out 17. on 13th December 1922 and made no deposit or withdrawal again till January 1924, when, wishing to make a deposit, she looked for the book and could not find it. Her mother then wrote to the Post Office and in course of correspondence she stated the amount to her credit to be 181. 68. 1d. This was two pounds more than it was in fact, as she ought to have known, as it did not allow for a withdrawal of 11. in June 1922 and the withdrawal on 13th December. The Post Office replied that the amount to credit was only 19s. 5d., and then the mother stated that the withdrawals had not been made by the depositor. Not only were the applications for withdrawal, in the Chief Registrar's opinion, signed in a handwriting which completely resembled the signature of the depositor, but the name of the Post Office and the date and the amount were filled in in a handwriting which was indistinguishable from that of the depositor. Fourteen of the withdrawals were made at the Withdrawal, Disputed. King's Road Post Office, St. Leonards-on-Sea, within a few yards of the shop and were initialled by paying officers, who, the depositor stated, were all known to her. Two others were made at the head post office, Hastings. All the five post officials who initialled the withdrawal forms were called and none of them remembered any of the transactions or knew the depositor at the time of the withdrawals. Her sister, Mable Hill, who was in the habit of sorting the letters that arrived by the post, deposed that she had never seen the depositor's book returned by post, but of course there was no evidence to what addresses the person who made the withdrawals had directed it to be returned. In these circumstances, the Chief Registrar held that it was impossible to suppose that these 16 transactions were carried out by a forger, who was personating the depositor. Award that the application of the depositor for the reinstatement of 16 sums of 11. to the credit of her account be dismissed, that the balance of the deposits be paid to the Postmaster-General for his expenses, that the depositor do pay the Registrar the Treasury fee of 5s. for this award and 11. 8s. 8d. for his expenses, and that the Treasury fee of 31. 3s. for a hearing elsewhere than in London be remitted. Solicitors Turner, Osborne & Chatterton, for Young, Coles & Langdon, Hastings. Holder, Identity of. (b) SAVINGS CERTIFICATES. Claim by administrator of holder of certificates alleged to have been taken out by him for himself in another name. Isaac Acknosskey in trust for Isaac Davies. 400 certificates. Hearings, September 29th, October 24th, Award, October 27th. The case was heard on written evidence by the Chief Registrar in London and then adjourned by him to Manchester. The certificates were claimed by Jack Davies, son and administrator of the holder Isaac Acknosskey, as part of his estate. It was established by the evidence that the holder was known and had been known for a great many years as Isaac Davies, and that the certificates had been bought with money withdrawn by him for the purpose from his account at the Manchester and Salford Savings Bank. This account was opened by him when he first came to England in the early seventies in the name of Isaac Acknosskey and was still in that name at the time. 66 at The application for the certificates was filled in by a Miss Key at the Savings Bank "Isaac Acknosskey for Isaac Davies (minor) Isaac Acknosskey or Davies' address and was duly signed by him by mark. Subsequently a Mr. Moss who was then chief teller added in red ink the words seven years of age." Both these persons thought they must have added these words from information given by Acknosskey. A Miss Settle, who sent the applications up to the Post Office, added at the top of the form "certificate to be in the name of Isaac Davies or words to that effect. The words preceding "in the name " were torn off, but the intention was clear. 66 When the application reached London the Accountant General's Department added the words "in trust" in front of the words 'for Isaac Davies," without any authority, and put the certificate in the |