DIRT-TRACK RACING

Dominion, Volume 31, Issue 141, 11 March 1938, Page 8

DIRT-TRACK RACING

Supreme Court Case Continued CONTENTIONS FOR defence The defence against the applications to the court by Wellington Speedways, Ltd., for an order giving that company the right of renewing its lease <of Kilbirnie Stadium for a further 10 years from Association Football Grounds, Ltd., and granting it relief from the latter company’s forfeiture of the lease, started in the Supreme Court, Wellington, yesterday. The case will enter its fourth day of hearing to-day. The Chief Justice- (Sir Michael Myers) was on the bench. Mr. P. B. Cooke, K.C., and the Hon. W. Perry, appeared for plaintiff company, Wellington Speedways, Ltd., and Mr. D.. W. Virtue and Mr. J. Meltzer appeared for Association Football Grounds, Ltd. Plaintiff’s case concluded yesterday. Before Mr. Virtue opened his address for defendant, his Honour said that if plaintiff company had been a sporting organisation operating not for personal profit but for the promotion of sport, allowing themselves a reasonable rate of interest on the money which they had to find, he would be rvery much inclined to say that the court should go a long way to help them. That, however, was not the position, but he must not be misunderstood as saying that even now plaintiff company could not recover. He would have to consider that matter as the case went on, but he would have no hesitation in saying that if it was a company formed for the promotion of healthy sport and athletic exercises, he would strive to go the length of granting them relief. Defendant’s View. Mr. Virtue, opening his address, said that, defendant company was incorporat in 1912 to acquire the ground for holding iu perpetuity a headquarters for the Association football game in Wellington. The original capital was £5OOO, but as yet only 3386 £1 shares had been allotted. The bulk of the subscriptions were in £1 shares contributed by people anxious to help the game. His Honour: What do they do with their profits? Mr. Virtue: We’ve only bad one profit. His Hontfur: When was that? Mr. Virtue: When the speedways were in their heydey.

Mr. Virtue referred to the articles of memorandum of the pompany and traced the objects connected with the purchase of the ground and its use. The articles of association of the company were also referred to, and counsel mentioned that according to one clause 300 £1 shares were held in trust for the Wellington Football Association. The company had paid only one dividend in its career, in 1931, of 7i per cent, on paid-up capital. At that time the principal holder of shares was the Wellington Football Association and a big dividend went to it to assist its amateur activities. For the 25 years of the company’s existence the directors had remained practically unchanged, had given their services gratuitously, and had never accepted directors’ fees. The directors of Speedways on the other hand, drew between £l2OO and £l5OO a year in directors’ fees over two or three years. The view that defendant company had of the stadium on the ground was that in Its present state it was a liability rather than an asset to Speedways. . When erected in 1928 the stadium deprived the Association of one of its three playing grounds. Replying to his Honour, counsel said that at the moment he did not know what was going to happen to the ground, though application had been made to the City Council to use the stadium and the ground for football this coming winter. It was intended to put the speedway track back -into grass again. His Honour: I can’t help thinking— I may be. wrong—that both parties have an eye open for possible profit during the period of the Centennial Exhibition. \Mr. Virtue said that his company owned the ground, and it was theirs to do as they liked with. What they" complained about was that they were being held to a lease by a moribund company which deprived defendant company of the usg of the ground for five-twelfths of the year, and prevented them from bargaining -with other interests. In addition, defendant company had t?i pay £75 a year in rates and £ll in land tax. They objected to being shackled) to plaintiff company. Last year all that was received from Speedways .was £l5, and payment made in respect to the ground was £5B/6/4 apart from land tax. It was submitted that the stadium in its present state was no asset to plaintiff company. The city council had refused to grant a licence for the use of the seating accommodation because it was unsafe, and not more than 30 per cent, of the decking was in a good state of repair. The insurance premium on this asset had not been paid by plaintiff., company for three years, though if the directors considered it was an asset it would be thought that they would be concerned about the insurance cover.

Evidence was given along these lines by several witnesses, after which the court adjourned until this morning.