A MYSTERIOUS CABLE.

Auckland Star, Volume LXVII, Issue 292, 9 December 1936, Page 10

A MYSTERIOUS CABLE.

SALESMAN CROSS-EXAMINED. Cross-examined by Mr. Young (counsel for Argyle) yesterday aftcrnooy Bridgewater admitted that hefmethc formation of the defendant company in and assistance in protectn a ests of shareholders. Mr. Young: Did you ever write to McArthur offering your assistance liim in New Zealand? . Witness: I don't remember having dO Mr S Young: Then will you explain this cablegram received 'Much McArthur on August 2 > 1935 ' appreciate and reciprocate your offe cooperation according to documents Webber delivered." ' / • , After witness had replied to that lie could not tell the Court what the cablegram meant, his Honor said to him: "This case is going to be determined on the credence I can attach to your word. I am earnestly anxious to believe, but I do wish that yon would try to do yourself justice. Here is an important cablegram and you cannot explain it." Witness said all he could remember was that Webber, an agent of McArthur. had called and witness had given him some reports and circulars to take to McArthur in Sydney. His Honor: This cable acknowledges proposals of yours for reciprocal working. Can you tell me what they were? Witness: I have no recollection of making definite proposals. His Honor: Then that cable is meaningless to you 1 Witness: Yes, that is what it amounts

to ' Mr. Young asked witness whether lie told the present plaintiff and others that the issue of a writ against the defendant company would cost_ them each £100. Witness denied this. He said he told them a writ would cost them £100 collectively. He told them lie had never been mixed up in litigation before. He hoped the matter, would be settled Amicably. . . Mr. Young produced copies of several Supreme Court writs and asked witness whether he would deny he had been involved in - several previous writs for fraud-. Witness admitted the writs, but said he meant hs had not appeared in Court.