Company Director Denies Theft Of Machine

Press, Volume CVI, Issue 31341, 11 April 1967, Page 12

Company Director Denies Theft Of Machine

Admissions that he had secretly removed an insulation blower valued at £9BO from the premises of a business competitor, and that it was still in bis possession, were made by John Hamilton Brown, aged 44, a company director, through his counsel (Mr R. J. Gilbert) before Mr Justice Macarthur and a jury in the Supreme Court yesterday. Brown is standing trial on a charge of theft of the blower from Fibredown Insulation (Canterbury), Ltd., on November 17. The hearing of defence evidence will continue today. Mr R. K. Godfrey appeared with Mr Gilbert

Outlining the evidence for the Crown, Mr C. M. Roper said the plant had been manufactured by Andrews and Beaven, Ltd., of Christchurch, for New Plumbing, Ltd., of Dunedin. It was to be delivered to Fibredown Insulation (Canterbury), Ltd., and this was done on November 8, 1966. At that time Fibredowh was not actively engaged in business because work was still being done on its premises. Blower Disappeared

On November 17 the man-, ager of Fibredown found that the blower had disappeared from the premises. He learned that it bad been loaded on to an Express Company truck that afternoon and taken away. “The manager at first thought it had been taken away by Andrews and Beaven for modification, but this was not so. It was taken without the company’s consent and has not been seen to this day,” said Mr Roper. “The evidence will be that Brown knows where it is. He declines to return it or say where it is.”

Mr Roper said Brown was in business with Insul-Fluf, and Weathermaster Insulation, Ltd., in opposition to Fibredown Insulation, Ltd.

In a statement made to the police Brown said he had ordered such a blower from Andrews and Beaven. When he heard that a blower had been delivered to Fibredown he thought there had been a mistake, and it had gone to the wrong place, said Mr Roper. Brown said he had an agreement with Andrews and Beaven that they would not manufacture a blower for a rival company. He claimed they had no right to manufacture one for Fibredown. Mr Roper said the evidence would be that Brown ordered a van to go to the premises of Fibredown, collect the blower and take it to Falsgrave street. There it was transferred to a plain pantechnicon.

The blower was then taken to the garage of a private residence. Two days later the blower was removed about 1 a.m. “Where it is now is anybody’s guess.” Mr Roper said evidence would be given that there had been no such agreement with Brown as he claimed. “The Crown says he took the blower to prevent it getting into the hands of a rival. “In his statement he said it would be disastrous for his business if the blower got into the bands of a competitor long enough for it to be copied.” He said that after the lower Court hearing Brown was told the Supreme Court hearing would probably be in May. Brown then said: “Good. He should be out of business by then.” Mr Roper said it was for the jury to decide whether Brown had acted honestly, believing he had the right to take the blower or had acted dishonestly, with the prime purpose of keeping a competitor out of business. Admissions After the mid-morning adjournment Mr Gilbert submitted to his Honour and the jury four admissions by consent of the Crown. He said they would be accepted as proved and save the calling of seven witnesses for the Crown. In the admissions Brown said he admitted that the blower was removed on his instructions from Fibredown Insulation, Ltd, on NovemZb

ber 17; the removal was done with secrecy; the blower was loaded on to an Express Company truck; and that he has not returned it or disclosed its whereabouts. George Henry Claridge, managing director of New Plumbing, Ltd, said in evidence he had discussed with Andrews and Beaven, Ltd, the manufacture of a pulveriser for paper, feeding equipment and a blower for installing insulation material. He ordered a pulveriser and a blower in August, and five more of each in September. He said Fibredown Insulation had not been able to start business because it did not now have a blower. Royalty To Be Paid Cross-examined by Mr Gilbert, the witness said it had been arranged that New Plumbing, Ltd, purchase the plant for installing insulation and sell it to Fibredown Insulation which would pay a royalty of 10 per cent on its production. He said the company had decided to set up agencies throughout New Zealand. If the agencies were unable to sell their product New Plumbing, Ltd, would buy the machinery back. William Beath Beaven, works director for Andrews and Beaven, Ltd, said there was nothing special about the blower supplied to Fibredown Insulation. It was similar to a lot of other air conveying systems and he knew of no bar to his firm making one for Fibredown Insulation,

Under cross-examination by Mr Gilbert, the witness said a blower had been imported from America under an Andrews and Beaven licence. It was used by Brown to install insulation before being used as a prototype for the manufacture of others. He said he was aware that a writ for £20,000 damages had been issued against Andrews and Beaven for wrongful disclosure and delivery of the blower plant.

Kenneth Albert Wallace Doell, manager of the seed and provender division of An-

drews and Beaven, said there had been no agreement with the accused not to manufacture and sell a blower of this type to another company. The only understanding was that he would not divulge how Insulfluff was manufactured. Defence

In his opening address Mr Gilbert said the jury might well consider the matter should have come before the Supreme Court in its civil jurisdiction. Brown said in evidence he had obtained a blower unit from America from which blueprints were taken by Andrews and Beaven. The cost of the blue prints was written off against the first four machines manufactured by Andrews and Beaven.

Eight machines were made and supplied, none without his knowledge and approval. He insisted that nobody should get them but himself.

He said that when he heard that Andrews and Beaven might be making blowers for another firm he telephoned Mr Doell who said this was definitely not so. As a result of further information he flew to Christchurch from the North Island and asked Mr Beaven about a blower supplied to Fibredown Insulation. Mr Beaven said that was the concern of Mr Doell and he would ring him in Invercargill. He said that after this Beaven told him there had been a “terrible mistake” made. Beaven said:

“I am not prepared to get any of my staff into trouble. I have made the mistake. I don’t know how to make it up to you. I’m thinking of a royalty.” Beaven told him he was not prepared to do anthing about getting the machine back, but would not make any more machines for anyone and would give a legal undertaking to that effect. Brown said it was true be had used subterfuge to recover the blower. He had instructed his solicitor to issue proceedings to determine its ownership. He was satisfied he was the lawful owner.