£10,865 CLAIMED.

Press, Volume LXVII, Issue 20366, 13 October 1931, Page 7

£10,865 CLAIMED.

MOUNT COOK TOURIST COMPANY SUED.

EVIDENCE CONCLUDED. Evidence in tho Supremo Court action before his" Honour Mr Justice Kennedy, involving a claim for £10,805 by A. J. White, Ltd., from tho Mount Cook Tourist Company, Ltd., the amount being alleged to bo owing as the balance of the cost of furnishing the Chateau Tongariro, was concluded yesterday, and counsels' addresses were commenced. Mr A. \Y. Brown, with liim Mr L. \T. Gee, appeared for the plaintiff company, and Mr W. J. Sim, with hiir Mr L. E. Finch, for the defendant company. Continuing under cross-examination from Friday, by Mr Brown, Kodolph Lysaght Wigley, managing director of tho Mount Cook Tourist Company, and until its liquidation managing director of the Tongariro Park Tourist Company, said that the Mount Cook Company advanced several thousands of | pounds to the Tongariro Company until tho share capital of the latter company started to come in. lie told Mr O'Connell (secretary of A. J. White) that Sir John Findlay and he were strongly of the opinion that the Tongariro Company should be a separate one so as not to ''drag down" the Mount Cook Company. Government Advances. He told him further that the Government was advancing £40,000. The actual cost of the Chateau was £85,000. Witness explained that he had shown the Rt. Hon. J. G. Coatcs the plans of tho Chateau, and had told him that it would cost considerably more than had been anticipated. Air C'oate3 advised witness on no condition to cut down the estimates, as it would spoil tho work, and said that further advances could bo made. Mr O'Connell knew, therefore, that more money would be advanced on top of the £,4:0,000. At that time witness thought tho building would cost £.00,000. The words "in conjunction with the Tongariro Park Tourist Company, Ltd." -were used, in tho Mount Cook Company's letter paper, for the sake of advertising and advising the public that the different hotels in which the Mount Cook Company was interested were run together. Thus, a tourist would know that he would receive the same treatment in all the hotels be visited. Tho last thing the words were meant to convey was that the two companies were responsible for each other's financial liabilities. Mr O'Connell had always known witness as the managing director of the Mount Cook Company, and there was never any suggestion that the dealings were with the Mount Cook Company. Witness certainly had wide powers as managing director. Eoferring to the meeting at the Chateau in April, 1929, it was fixed that the limit for furnishing should be £IO,OOO, continued witness. Mr Brown: Was that of sufficient importance to place in the minutes? There were no minutes, replied witness, but it was placed ou record in June. Their© was no actual meeting at the Chateau. There were four directors, and Mr H. Hall, the architect, present, and they went into the whole question of furnishing with the representatives of various firms whom they had asked to jp.e at the Chateau. Witness spoke ttf ,eacn director in ; turn, explaining J. White's proposition. > Question of Minutes. The decision to give the order to, A. J. Whites was made after the other representatives had left? Yes. What time was this meeting held? Aa I said before, there was no meeting. The .business was quite informal, and I got the other directors' opinions on the proposition separately. In fixing the minute we had to put some date on it. ' . And to fix some statement as to wiio were, present?— Not necessarily. We can put a minute through at any time bv getting all the directors to sign it. "Why was the minute not signed by, Mr Lysaght? —I don't know. Witness continued that Mr Hall, the architect, was present at the informal meeting of the directors because they desired his advice. _ Mr Brown: Are all the minutes ot the Tongariro Company as incorrect as this one?—No, and that one is not incorrect. The minutes are read and confirmed, T suppose? —Yes. Do you put your name to minutes that do not contain all the details ot the business transacted?—As far as I know all tho details were incorporated. Witness continued that the final selection of the. furniture was left for a meeting in A. J. White's warehouse. The amount had to be raised to £II,OOO. Witness agreed to tho irtcrease, and later secured the approval of the other directors. It was decided to grant A. J. White's the full amount of the account if they agreed to accept debentures in full satisfaction.

Mount Cook Company's Finances. Mr Brown: What were the Mount Cook Company's finances like when the negotiations commenced? —We offered to pay off £IO,OOO odd to the outsido creditors of the Tongariro Company. Did it not give you a shock when A. J. White's joined the Mount Cook Company with Tongariro? —-les, it did. The. bank, continued witness, definitely refused to allow the Mount Cook Company to have any further negotiations with the Tongariro Company. Had economic conditions been normal the latter company could havo carried on. There was owing to Fletcher s £17,000 pr £IB,OOO on the contract to build tho chateau, but the bulk of the construction price had been paid. The sale of furniture to Brent's Hotel, Uotorua, was arranged a3 a set-off against the Mount Cook .Company's account. Mr Brown: Did not the Mount Cook Company buy a lawnmower for the chateau from John Burns and Company and pay for it 7 —Yes. Why, if the Mount Cook Company and Tongariro Company were separate companies?—lt was wanted for the Hermitage first. Was not the account paid partly in cash and partly in promissory notes?Yes, but tho lawnmower was unsuit!,.ble for tho golf links, and should have been returned. By. mistake it was included in the Government's chattel security at Tongariro. Were not the girls employed at the various hotels moved about from one fc the other, say, from the Hermitage to Brent's?— No. The Mount Cook Company left it to Mr Brooks, then secretary of the Hotel Employees' Union, to keep the Hermitage supplied with a staff. Later Mr Brooks joined the Hermitage and then joined the Tongariro staff, being paid there by (he Tongariro Company. He-examined by Mr Sim, witness said that in 1930 the Mount Cook Company was involved in the tongariro Company to the extent of £.13,000 or £14,000. They had lost approximately € 11,000. Profits made by the Mount Cook Company were to go to their shareholders, and Tongariro Company profits were to go to Tongariro share-

holders. There was no connexion between them. Counsel's Address. Mr Sim said that although the sum of £15,000 was involved, there was no written contract. In the circumstances there was nothing to show that the Mount Cook Company had bound itself to pay. There was nothing remotely resembling a contract in the correspondence. The case for the plaintiffs dopended on verbal evidence of conversations on various dates, and no case could be placed before the Court on more unstable foundations. The onus of proof was on the plaintiffs, and br submitted that Mr O'Connell's evidence was in conflict with that of the directors of tho Tongariro Company. Upon that evidence the whole case for the plaintiff rested. The Court adjourned until 10.15 a.m. to-day.