PROFIT FROM SPORT.

Sun (Christchurch), Volume I, Issue 226, 28 October 1914, Page 5

PROFIT FROM SPORT.

TRANSACTION IN LAND. A SECRETARY'S DEALINGS. WHO BENEFITED? At a general meeting of the Christchurch Sports Club last evening there was a great deal of discussion, some of it heated, regarding the position of the title to the section in Armagh Street owned by the Sports Club, which position was referred to in yesterday's Sun. The matter was brought up by Mr E. Nordon, when the meeting reached the item ''Election of Committee'' on the agenda paper, Mr Nordon suggested that the general business should be taken first, as he had something to bring up which might affect the election of committeemen. Members desired to be given an indication of what the business was. Mr Nordon gave that, and the meeting then adopted his suggestion. "ABSOLUTELY STAGGERED." Mr Nordon said that after the last meeting of the committee certain things had been brought under his notice which absolutely staggered him. While chairman of the committee, he had noticed that the ownership of the section in Armagh Street weighed down the club's finances. At the committee's request, he and the then secretary tried to dispose of the section. In doing so, he (Mr Nordon) found out some things which he thought should be brought to light. He had been told that the section, which was obtained by the club several years ago, had been purchased by a member of the committee of that time for £750, and sold to the club for £BSO. The speaker had then instructed a firm of solicitors to search the title to the section, with the result that he was informed that the club was not, from a legal point of view, the owner of the section. Mr A. R. Kirk interjected that he could explain the position of the title. The section was in the names of three trustees for the club. The conveyance was executed and stamped, but was not registered, for certain reasons which were well known to the committee-.in office then. Those trustees were Dr Thacker and Messrs W. G. Ataek and himself. The title to the section was absolutely clear and good, with one exception, the non-registration of the conveyance. Mr J. F. Grierson: Is there a caveat? Mr Kirk: No. There was no occasion for it.' Mr Grierson: Oh, there should be a caveat. OWNERSHIP IN JEOPARDY. Mr Nordon, resuming, said that he could not argue against the legal opinion just given by Mr Kirk, as he (Mr Nordon) was not a lawyer, but he was advised by a leading firm of solicitors in Christchurch quite differently—that the legal position of the club regarding this section was in jeopardy. The fact remained that the club's title should have been registered. Mr Kirk: The club is not a registered body. Mr Nordon: Then it should be. Mr Kirk: What harm would the nonregistration do? Mr Nordon: The harm is this, that in the Deeds Registry Office the title to the section is in the name of Mr Joseph Lee, not of the club. Non-registration was a great blunder. He understood the position in law to be that the three trustees could, if the club did not know them to be honourable men, sell the section and put the money in their own pockets.. He knew perfectly well that the three trustees named would not do that, but they should not consider the identity of the trustees —the position remained. Mr C. T. Aschman: I would like to ask that the legal gentlemen present, without charging 6/8, should tell us what effect this would have. Mr F. W. Johnston then explained that if Mr Lee were not a man of means, and a straight-forward man, as they knew him to be, the fact that the deed was not registered might place the club's ownership in jeopardy. Everyone knew Mr Lee, and knew that the title was safe. If those people who dealt with the matter were satisfied with Mr Lee's bona fides, no harm was done. But if Mr Lee had happened to be a man of straw, the sooner the matter were fixed up the better. Mr Johnston also traversed Mr Nordon's opinion regarding the power of trustees. Mr Kirk suggested that the meeting should go into committee to hear the reason for the conveyance of the section not being registered. This was agreed to. PROFIT AND LOSS. After Mr Kirk's explanation was given, Mr Nordon said he had some more questions to ask. He wanted to know what security the debentureholders had. He had noticed from the list of debenture-holders that very few of the members of the committee of the time the section was. purchased held debentures. That was, of course, their own business, but apparently they had no confidence in the transaction. He also wanted to know something else. When Mr Lee sold the section, he sold it for £750. When the Sports Club bought it £BSO was paid for it. He wanted to know why that £IOO was made, and who by. The time for bandying words had gone past. It was common talk —and he had abundant evidence to prove it—that the £IOO profit was made by a member of the committee which purchased the section. If the speaker got no satisfaction now, he was going to push the matter further. He could not conceive of anyone who was a member of a club engaged in promoting sport, and who claimed to be a sport, doing anything like that; and anyone who did it should no longer be a member. No one could defend such an action Mr Kirk: No one would attempt it. Mr Nordon went on to explain that i he knew nothing of The Sun 's article until he read the paper that evening, and he was not responsible for a word of it, but he had found the whole thing exposed there. Were the members of the club, as business men, going to sit still unless some information of the transaction was gleaned? If such a thing had been done —and he had evidence that it had—he for one would refuse to sit unless the matter were threshed out. The thing had to be ventilated, and the section was not worth the money paid for it. Mr C. C. Derrett: It was not worth £6OO. Mr Nordon: Now, the land agents tell me that they can't get £6OO for it. The club has not only paid at least £IOO more for the section than it should, but it has also been weighed down by the City Council's rates for four or five years, besides the interest paid to de-

benture-holders. I think the whole thing is a scandal, and the sooner it is cleared up the better. Mr Kirk pointed out that the houses which were on the section when it was bought had to be destroyed or sold, and therefore there was no revenue [ from the section to meet the rates. ' Mr Aschman thought the thing should be enquired into. In reply to Mr Kirk, Mr Nordon said that he did not connect this matter with the non-registration of the deed, nor did he infer that the persons responsible for the sale were responsible for the non-registration. The president (Dr Simpson): Who bought the section? Mr T. E. Robson:- Well, I owned it about then. MR ROBSON ADMITS THE PROFIT. After a little cross-talk, Mr Robson said: The position is that Lee sold me the section for £750, and I sold it to the club for £BSO. At that time the club had been discussing the question of buying a section. Another member of the committee, Mr Charles Clark, was asked by the committee to try to purchase a section. I knew that Mr Clark had found two sections, one midway between Hereford and Cashel streets, a quarter-acre, for which £2200 was asked, and another section, in Hereford street, opposite the police station, another quar-ter-acre, for which £1250 was asked. I knew Mr Clark's figures, and I purchased my section off Bowker, Lee's agent, before Mr Clark put his figures before the committee. The committee turned down Mr Clark's sections, as being too expensive, and I mentioned mine. One of the other members of the committee went round and saw it, and the club bought it. There was nothing irregular in the matter. At that time there were two houses on the section, bringing in £53 or £54 a year. After three or four years the City Council required that both houses should be connected with the sewage system. The committee did not think that worth doing, and the City Council then insisted on their being pulled down. They were sold for £l3 or £l4. Subsequently the club decided that the cost of building a hall would be too great, and it was left at that. Mr Nordon pointed out that Mr Clark was not present. Being what the, rules called an ex-active member—-whatever that might mean—Mr Clark had not the privilege of being at the meeting. However, he had heard Mr Clark's version of the affair, and that version was quite different from Mr Robson ; s. Mr Clark was a man of wide repute and honour, and his word was quite as good as Mr Robson's. Mr Kirk: It is only a fair inference that Mr Robson bought the section before there was any question of a section being placed'before the committee of the club. Mr Nordon: Mr Clark says that before the club bought the section he was asked to value it. In proceeding to do so he looked into the question of title, and found that the section had just been sold for £750. It was sold to the club for.£Bso. No explanation that Mr Rdbson has given can condone his action, as secretary and member of the committee of the club at that time, selling the section to the club and making a profit of £IOO. WAS THE £IOO SHARED? ' ... Turning toward Mr Robson, Mr Nor-1 don continued: It has been stated to me that you admitted in public that you shared the £IOO with someone else, who was also a member of the committee. Mr Robson: I'm not going to say,, for the benefit of the newspapers, what I did with the money. Mr Nordon: Those who are controlling the sport are not supposed to bene;fit by even a sixpence from it. Mr Aschman remarked that members might have their' own opinion as to the means adopted of buying and sellings this section to the club, but it was no! crime. He would, however, like an assurance from Mr Robson that the latter had bought the section before the club had gone into the question of buying a section, or, rather, before it was suggested. Mr Robson: I couldn't have sold it if I hadn't bought it After repeating some of his previous explanations, Mr Robson went on: Mr Clark and two others were asked to look out for sections. I went round and saw the section, saw Bowker, paid a deposit, and got it. I saw nothing wrong with it. It was my property, ; and I sold it as such. Mr Johnston: The thing is, did Rob-1 son buy the section after enquiries had been made by the committee on behalf of the club. Mr Robson: No. Mr Nordon suggested that as Mr Clark's version did not tally with Mr Robson's, the club should take Mrj Clark's evidence. Mr Grierson: When did Robson buy' it? .' j Mr Robson repeated the explanation; he had made. j "DON'T HEDGE!" ! Mr Johnston: We don't want, so much Clark. We don't want to know | what Mr Clark did. We want to know what you did. I don't care whether it was Clark or any other man who was asked for a The thing is, did you buy it and when? It's a matter of' ethics. We don't want Clark all the evening. We've had enough rot. You're hedging all the time. You've been hedging for the last ten minutes. Mr Robson: I'm not hedging. As secretary of the club or as Robson, which you like, I bought it. Mr Johnston: Was it before the committee thought of buying a section? Mr Robson: Yes. Mr Grierson: When? Give the date., Mr Robson said he did not know. ' Mr Grierson (banging the table):; What! You buy some land and don't know when! j Someone suggested that the papers in connection with the purchase and the club's minute-book should show the dates. Mr Robson was not quite sure whe- ; ther he had the minute-book. Mr Grierson (angrily):' You must have it. Let's have a straightout answer. Mr Aschman objected to brow-beat-ing. If necessary, let the club set up a committee to investigate the dates* There was no need for shouting and pounding the table. There was also no need for hedging. Mr Robson: I've got nothing to hedge. In reply to Mr Nordon, Mr Robson said he understood he had the minutebook. Mr Moir move'd that Messrs Nordon, 1 Johnston, and Aschman be appointed a committee to investigate the dates connected with the transaction This was seconded by Mr Kirk and carried.