DEMOCRAT PARTY LITIGATION

Press, Volume LXXII, Issue 21909, 9 October 1936, Page 8

DEMOCRAT PARTY LITIGATION

Organiser's Claim Fails

JUDGMENT FOR THE DEFENDANTS

PLAINTIFFS INTENTION TO APPEAL

(PfiKSS ASSOCIATION T*L*OBAU.)

AUCKLAND, October 8. Judgment for the defendants was Siv=n by Mr S.M._ today, in a case in which H. C. Bauli. organiser of the Democrat Political party, claimed against William Goodfellow J. B. Donald, A. E. Davy, Spencer Clark, and T. C. A. Hislop. for £195 wages alleged to be due. The magistrate concluded: “I think that Baulfs services, at any rate after the nomination of candidates, did constitute an illegal practice and that he is therefore at law precluded from enforcing his contract.” The question of costs was reserved. After tracing the formation of the party, the magistrate said the plaintiff was first told of the new party by the defendant,. A. E. Davy. They worked together, organising and supporting two other political parties in promoting one which had suffered financial disappointment.

“They were therefore,” said the magistrate, “both concerned as political soldiers of fortune as to the soundness of the arrangement for providing the party funds.” It was first suggested to the plaintiff that he might be appointed organiser at £lO weekly and expenses. “I think he gained the impression that he was to be a weekly servant, and that the work was likely to last until the month after the election. There was a subsequent interview in October. 1934. when ne was shown an agreement, and his wages were fixed by Davy at £6 weekly and expenses About the same time, the plaintiff discussed the matter with the defendant, William Goodfellow, who confirmed the statement that he was providing the money to finance the concern in the early stages, and that he intended collecting from others. He and the plaintiff subsequently chose office premises for the party.” Origin of the Party The magistrate said the party seemed to have come into being on October 29, 1934, when Goodfellow, Davy. Baulf, and eight others formed themselves into an Auckland executive committee. The plaintiff was present at many meetings, and therefore had a full knowledge of the treasurer’s reports. He began work on October 22. He was paid by Davy lor one week, was paid two cheques by Goodfellow —one for £l6 13s 4d on October 31, two days after the formation of the party, and the other for £l6 on November 28, 1934. The party also paid all moneys owing him with fair regularity until the middle of January. 1935.

The magistrate outlined differences which occurred between Goodfellow and Davy, the former reducing his contributions. The position became so strained that in July, Goodfellow endeavoured unsuccessfully to have Davy removed from the Dominion executive, and although be associated himself with the party until August 19, he said he did so only to try to “salvage” it. “His metaphor is apt,” said the magistrate. “I think hi thought there was danger of shipwreck, and the crew had mutinied. Finally he decided that his safest place was ashore, and on August 19 he resigned from the party. On the morning of November 28 the ship was posted as missing, with the loss, politically, of ill hands.” The magistrate added that the evidence led him to suppose that the plaintiff went into the venture in an unduly confident and perhaps speculative frame of mind, and with the notion that the party funds would be large and his position secure. Responsibility for Payment “I do not think he intended to look to either of the defendants, Davy or Goodfellow, personally for payment. Certainly, during the first eight or nine months, he knew nothing of Donald, Hislop, or Clark as his employers, for they were not associated with the party until the middle of ±935. He says repeatedly that he expected to be paid out of party funds to be controlled by the Dominion executive. I am not prepared to accept the plaintiff’s story of a personal verbal promise by Donald to pay the plaintiff’s debt himself. I think Donald, who seems to have treated his rather penurious relative with generosity in times of stress, has told me the true version.”

“The plaintiff is clearly a man with no sense of loyalty, and that form of truth known as sincerity is not in him,” the magistrate said. “His career and that of the defendant Davy show that their modus operand! was to ally themselves with one political party for a short time and then desert to the enemy. Indeed, the correspondence discloses that within a few months of the end of the Democrat party they made unsuccessful overtures to enlist in the service of the party to whose defeat they had in a measure contributed.” , , The magistrate reviewed other recorded cases bearing on the point at issue. He said that the plaintiff knew of the possible risk of depending upon party funds. Before he undertook the work, he satisfied himself that he would be paid out of the funds which it was proposed to raise, although the donors of that fund were quite unknown to him, with one exception. He never considered that he might be affected bv changes in the personnel of the executive. His conduct throughout had been consistent with his claim being limited to the fund, and not a personal claim against the members of the organisation or the Dominion executive. “Political Adventurers’* “The evidence shows that the plaintiff was one of the political adventurers who banded themselves together to form an organisation to float a new party,” continued the magistrate, “and that he was to be paid, not by

to justify committal. He considered committal was necessary because she was not able to look after herself or her affairs. He admitted, however, that if she had had an attendant in her home, committal would not have been necessary. Before counsel commenced their addresses. hi~ Honour asked that great care should be taken to see that the documentary evidence was put forward in as complete a form as possible. "There Is a possibility,” his Honour added, “that the case may not rest here, and I think it would be well for counsel to bring the file of documents to completion beyond any suggestion of error.” Stating that he would be glad to allow counsel time to consider the matter fully, his Honour then adjourned the hearing until 10 a.m. today.

the members of the organisation, but* out of such moneys as they might, railed; from sympathisers, or which they themselves might give.” • ■ It was true, Mr Wilson said, that when the contract was made by Davy and Goodfellow, it was agreed that the latter should assist with the finances for the first six months, but the magistrate was unable to find that there was any liability upon him for any definite sum other than the salary of Davy. He certainly did contribute, and seemed to have dpne all that he had promised. plaintiff kne w that his wages were not to be by either Daw or Goodfellow, but that he was to work for the party + (or orangisation) when it came into being, mid must look to the party funds for his money. In the meantime he was keptm funds by Davy and Goodfellow. ’The cheques paid to him on November 28, 1834, were not wages then due to him, for he had not served for two months at that time. It was claimed that the organisation, acting through its executive adopted the contract Made by the plaintiff with Davy, and Goodfellow but the evidence did not support such a contention. There was no change in the relationship of the parties to the contract. All that happened was that the contract, and the work to be done under it, advanced to the second stage which had been contemplated by the original contractors. The magistrate also dismissed the submission that there was an implied contract by the organisation to pay the plaintiff for his services on quantum merui. Source of Payment The plaintiff also contended that a new contract was made by the defendant Davy on behalf of the executive, when his weekly wages were raised to £7. and that similarly there was a new contract varying his expenses. The magistrate held that that did not affect the source of payment under the original contract. The course of the transaction between the parties, both before and after such variation, showed that it was never intended to vary the source of payment by imposing any personal responsibilities. At no time was there any contract by Goodfellow and Davy to be personally responsible for moneys claimed, nor had there been any holding out by Donald or Hislop that they were personally authorising the plaintiff to perform the services in which he was engaged. The plaintiff at all times knew his position to be as described by Davy: “If the party floats, Harry floats.” “I think,” added the magistrate, “that he realised also the grim alternative.”

The magistrate said he was not called upon to decide issue whether the defendants Davy and Hislop held moneys on behalf of the party. It might be that the plaintiff had a remedy against those moneys (if any) In a appropriate action. The defendant Hislop’s statement remained uncontradicted, that .000 of the money received by him was expressly stipulated as being to recompense him for any personal loss he might suffer. While it was regrettable that the plaintiff’s debt remained unpaid, it would bo wrong that any of the defendants, some of whom had lost heavily, should have to pay moneys for which it was never intended they should be responsible. Baulf announced this afternoon his intention to appeal to 1- j Supreme Court. His solicitor, Mr J. F. W. Dickson, has been instructed to take the necessary action.