DELAYED NEGOTIATIONS.

Auckland Star, Volume LVIII, Issue 68, 22 March 1927, Page 9

DELAYED NEGOTIATIONS.

CAUSE LOSS TO INVESTORS.

EX-AUCKLAND COMPANY PROMOTER SUED.

HEAVY DAMAGES AWARDED. Before Mr. Justice McGregor, in the Supreme Court, to-day, Mrs. Florence McNeill, of Devonport, claimed damages from William John Abbott, company promoter, formerly of Auckland, but now of Sydney, New South Wales, and Allan McKenzie McNeill, company promoter of Auckland, for the alleged failure by Abbott to carry out certain negotiations in connection with an invention for the conversion of meat into "meat flour." t Mr. A. M. Gould, for plaintiff, said the invention was the work of a Mr. Remus, butcher, of Rangataua, and it had the great advantage of retaining the nutritive qualities of meat and giving it keeping qualities. The invention was a very valuable one, and it was decided to take out certain patents. The matter was placed in the hands of the two defendants, who were carrying on business in Auckland as company promoters. In consideration of their work in obtaining letters-patent and in floating the concern, it was agreed that Remus should allow defendants a half share in the invention. The letterspatent were taken out in several countries, and the prospects of the invention were bright in the extreme. Capital wa9, however, required by McNeill and Abbott for the preliminary work, and defendants raised it by selling throughout New Zealand certain fractional interests in the expected profits which woujd accrue from the invention. Mrs. McNeill, who, by the way, was a relative of the defendant McNeill, was one of those who made the purchases, having put over £700 into the concern. Abbott had had several opportunities of completing negotiations which would bo of great benefit to the concern, but ho had adopted a very obstructive policy and had persistently declined to bring the negotiations .to a head. Abbott did not defend the case. Allan Mckenzie McNeill, the second defendant, was called by Mr. Gould. Witness said he was one of the holders of the letters-patent for the invention. Remus entered into an agreement with witness himself, Mr. Alexander McCredie, Mr. Charles Frederick Court and Abbott, the defendant, that Abbott and witness 6hould have a half interest in the invention in recognition of his work in floating and exploiting the concern. As capital was needed for this purpose, it was agreed that the prospective proceeds from tho halfinterest should be realised, and Abl>ott was instructed to negotiate. Abbott and witness commenced to sell certain sub-interests. On the expected proceeds of their half-share and about £12,000 was received. Nobody save Abbott had received any share of this. Missed Opportunities. Abbot htad continually obstructed tho proceedings, and negotiations with a Mr. Tramsey, a gentleman who had great influence in the meat trade in Australia, were allowed to fall through owing to defendant's refusal to act. Witness estimated Mrs. McNeill's loss over Abbott's behaviour at well over His Honor (to Mr. Gould): What has happened to all the money that was raised? Mr. Gould intimated that it had been disposed of. Abbott was penniless, and it might be that he would have to be made bankrupt. Walter Seth Smith, farmer, of Ohaknne, said he had also subscribed to the concern. He agreed that Mrs. McNeili had suffered very considerable loss bv the action of the defendant, Abbott. " His Honor said he was quite satisfied that Abbott had abused his position, and that he had acted in an obstructive manner by his failure to brinw the negotiations to a head within a reasonable time and at a reasonable price. It amounted to a braeh of contract and damages of £1500 would be allowed with costs.