CLAIM FOR £250

Press, Volume LXXXV, Issue 25903, 8 September 1949, Page 6

CLAIM FOR £250

BALANCE OF ALLEGED LOAN

DEFENCE OF PAYMENT FOR SERVICE

From Our Own Reporter GREYMOUTH, Sept. 7. In the Magistrate’s Court to-day, before Mr Rex C. Abernetny, S.M., John Griffin, a manufacturer, of Gladstone Siding, claimed £250 from Arthur Beban, picture proprietor, of Grey mouth. The plaintiff alleged that the £'2so was the balance of £3OO lent to defendant on or about December 27, 1938, of which £5O was repaid on or about October 27, 1943. For the defence, any suggestion of a loan was denied, and it was alleged that payment of the £3OO. which was admitted, was in consideration of defendant’s efforts to prevent the Hume Pipe Company, Ltd., from securing a licence to set up a factory in the district. The defence claimed that after representations to the member for the district, the late Mr James O’Brien, and subsequent interviews with two other Ministers of the Crown, Mr R. Semple and the late Mr D. G. Sullivan, in which the defendant had presented a case against the granting of a licence to the Hume Pipe Company, such application had been declined, and that the plaintiff had solicited the defendant's aid in opposing the granting of a licence. Decision was reserved.

Mr R. A. Yc-ung. of Christchurch, appeared for the plaintiff, and Mr C. S. Thomas, of Christchurch, appeared for the defendant.

Mr Young said that the plaintiff, who was formerly a publican in Christchurch, came to Greymouth in 1935 with a view to establishing a pipe and concrete products company. He met the defendant and they became friendly. About Christmas, 1938, the defendant, approached the plaintiff’s son. and said he wanted to borrow £3OO to assist him to pay income tax. The son replied that he did not have £3OO, but would get in touch with his father. Subsquently a cheque for £3OU was given to Beban, who cashed it. The plaintiff would say that the defendant promised to repay it as soon as possible. Subsequently, when asked for the money by the plaintiff, the defendant kept putting him off. In October, 1943, the de- . endant gave a cheque for £5O on account. About a year or more ago the L-iiit;ff and defendant fell out.

The plaintiff, in evidence, said he was a manufacturer and a director of New Zealand Concrete Pipe and Products (West Coast). Ltd. He gave evidence along the lines of counsel’s address. Gerard Patrick Griffin, in reply to Mr Thomas, denied that he had ever made a statement that Beban had been of great assist “’ace over the Hume Pipe Company. William John Gutberlet, of Hokitika. - cluced the records of the Concrete Pipe Company, in which he said there was no record of a payment to Beban for any services or any reimbursement. The Defence Opening the case for the defence. Mi . Thomas said Beban would say in evidence that his services were enlisted to prevent the Hume Pipe Company from getting a licence to operate on the West Coast. Beban was once a big contractor in association with his brother, and would say that Griffin approached him and asked I him to assist towards preventing a licence being granted to the Hume Company, and that if they were successful he would be on £3OO, as it would mean the life or death of Griffin’s new company. Mr J. Ryall, M.L.C.. arranged a meeting with Mr Semple and Mr- Sullivan in Christchurch, and as a result of these representations a licence was refused. Mr Thomas said that the defence was that the claim was purely and simply the result of bad blood between the two men. The explanation of the alleged repay- , ment of £5O was that the defendant had bought two cases of whisky at £25 a case from the plaintiff for a Wellington friend. The defendant, in evidence, said the plaintiff had told him, in offering him the £3OO. that it was worth a couple of thousand if they could stop the opposition pipe manufacturing company from coming in. He saw the late Mr James O’Brien, member for the district, and went to Wellington three times on the matter.

John Ryall. M.L.C.. said he had taken part in representations to Ministers opposing the granting of a licence to Hume Pipe Company. When Mr Semple and Mr Sullivan were interviewed in Christchurch it was in the company of Beban. who did most of the talking, the witness and plaintiff. The point advanced was that Griffin had established a works, and that it would be harmful to that business for the- Hume Company to establish another works in opposition. There had been no payment to him. nor any mention of payment to Beban for services rendered.

William Griffin, a brother oi th? plaintiff and a former director of New Zealand Pipe Products (West Coast). Ltd., now residing in Christchurch, detailed how the

directors had considered the matter of anproaches to be made to intercede with the Government when the threat of the Hume Pipe Company to enter the district arose He said the directors of the pipe '•ompany had’ chosen Beban for the work. An appropriate price for the work was discussed by the directors, and it had been agreed by them that £3OO should be □aid to Beban. Though his brother and he were bad friends, said witness, he was not making a voluntary appearance because of malice to his brother, but because he felt Beban was entitled to the money.