AN OIL CASE.

Sun (Christchurch), Volume I, Issue 149, 30 July 1914, Page 9

AN OIL CASE.

QUESTION OF ACCOUNTS. STARTLING EVIDENCE. TYPIST'S NOTES CHALLENGED. JUDGMENT RESERVED. After THE SUN went to press yesterday the hearing was continued before his Honour Mr Justice Sim in the Supreme Court of the case of A. E. Otway v. P. A. Herman, an action in which plaintiff sought to set aside agreements and reopen accounts between the parties. Mr W. C. McGregor, with him Mr A. F. Wright, appeared for the plaintiff, and Mr M. Myers, with him Mr A. H. Antony, for the defendant. Defendant, in concluding his evidence, stated that he. had given Otway £7500 in seven months. Re-examined by Mr Myers, he said Otway sold a number of shares without reference to him. Witness had the accounts prepared in duplicate on December 17. William Ernest Best, public accountant, said Herman's statement of accounts was a painstaking effort to show accounts clearly in an amateur form. An account such as that put in by Mr Tyers would have confused Mr Otwav. He could not suggest better accounts than Herman's as between two laymen. From the point of view of an accountant or business man, Mr Tyers's accounts were not correct. Otway had received in cash and shares £7Oll 16/3. So far as witness could see, Herman Avas not using the partnership funds for speculative purposes. To Mr McGregor: He had gone into the accounts thoroughly, and understood them. The full 28,500 shares were not shown in Mr Herman's accounts, which only showed 28,000. If Free's shares were excluded they accounted for 27,000.

To Mr Myers: He had devoted most time to Mr Tyers's accounts. The interest in Herman's account "was not cor ; rectly calculated at a basis of 8 per cent. It was correct on a basis of 9 per cent. Witness spoke 011 the assumption that both parties knew what was going on. This concluded the evidence for the defendant. CONCERNING SHORTHAND.

Mr McGregor said there was one question on which he would ask to hear one more witness. Leave had been reserved to apply to bring a rebutting case, but it was not proposed to proceed with this. Tha question he'wished to give more evidence on was one of fact as to whether the document was signed on December 16 or December 17. There were two very important pieces of evidence brought against Otway—the two memos, in Miss Harper's book. He would like to be allowed to call Miss Rout.

Mr Myers: This book was produced mouths ago. Otway was expressly cross-examined and told that Herman and Miss Harper would say the signatures took place on the 17th, and that the memos, were in the shorthand book. This book had been available for months. It seemed rather an unusual application to make at

Mr McGregor: The first we knew of these individual memos, was when Miss Harper gave her evidence. When she gave her evidence and Herman gave his evidence, we knew what they were •and we had them at once examined by the most competent expert we could get. Right to the day of the trial defendant set up, and relied upon, that these settlement accounts were signed on Decomber Hi, and it was not till the morning of the trial that we knew it was to be suggested they were signed on the 17th. On the morning of the trial, for some reason not explained, it was suggested they were signed on the 17. Then these two memos, were spoken of. His Honour agreed that Miss Rout should be called. Ettie Annie Rout stated that, looking at the shorthand notes of the memos, in the book she would say they were not written at the same time or under the same conditions as the other notes on the pages. They looked as if they had been written in later. She; did not suggest that Miss Harper hud not told the t ruth. Mr Myers: Do you really know what you are charging Miss Harper with? Witness: I am not charging her with anything. His Honour: Do you appreciate the inference 1 will be asked to draw from your evidence? Witness: Yes, your Honour. Mr Myers: Do you know Mr McGregor

will suggest Miss Harper has committed deliberate perjury? Witness: No. Has it not been explained to you? I think she is mistaken. Mr Myers: Surely the person who has done the work is in a better position to know than you are? Witness: No, not after a lapse of eighteen months. Charles Horace Gilby, an authorised court reporter, and for 26 years a teacher of shorthand, stated that the difference in the shorthand notes indicated to him that they had been written more slowly and therefore more carefully than had the others. COUNSELS' ADDRESSES. In addressing the court, Mr Myers said that the suggestion that had been made regarding the shorthand notes was a wicked one, against a decent, honourable, respectable young woman. It rested upon the merest theory without any foundation whatever. They had the positive evidence of Miss Harper, and he suggested she was an obvious witness of truth. He submitted that in the circumstances no notice could be taken of the expert evidence. It was admitted, he continued, that the plaintiff was entitled, but not in this action, to cash or shares in lieu of the 50 and the 250 shares under the agreement of February 15. There were two points at issue: (1) Whether the release should be set aside, and (2) whether or not these accounts should be reopened to any, and, if so, to what, extent. He submitted that on both these points the determination depended entirely upon questions of fact. He was bound to present the case to the courtfrom the point of view which struck him. Otway was a spendthrift. He. appeared to get through a large amount of money in a very little while. He came to Christchurch and met Mr Goodman. They talked together Mr McGregor: That is not the evidence.

Mr'Myers: Your Honour will see that Mr Otway has everything to gain, or a great deal to gain, if he succeeds in this action, and he has nothing to lose. That is the position, and I venture to suggest to your Honour that when Otway brought this action he never for a moment thought it would reach the court. I suggest that between the two of them they thought when this action was brought Herman would come to light with a considerable sum of money. These charges of fraud were levelled at him, and he has come to the court with evidence which, I submit, has not been shaken, and which disproves the case the plaintiff attempts to make out against him. Mr McGregor briefly addressed the court in reply to Mr Myers. At 6.20 p.m. his Honour intimated that he would take time to consider his decision, and thfe court adjourned.