NEWSPAPER SHARES NORTHERN ADVOCATE CASE

Evening Post, Volume LXXXVII, Issue 76, 31 March 1914, Page 2

NEWSPAPER SHARES NORTHERN ADVOCATE CASE

ALLEGATIONS OF MAUD. The case Cox v. Heyes, which was commenced before Mr. Justice Edwards yesterday morning, was continued after The Post went to press in the afternoon and was resumed this morning. Tho plainMff, Thomas Arthur Lloyd Cox, claimed from Peter Ilcyes, formerly Commissioner of Taxes, and Joseph M'Cluggage, of Stratford, in respect of losses suffered by him in connection with 500 shares in the Northern Advocate, Printing Company, of Whahgarei. He alleged that he, was induced by false representations to invest his money ; Unit the shares had been made practically worthless, and that in realising them he had lo&t £437 10s. He claimed that amount, and in addition interest at 8 per cciit. on his money and such damages as the Court might award. Mr. A. W. Blair appealed for tho plaintiff unil Mr. i'\ E. Pctheiick for the defendants. -During the hearing yesterday the plaintiff gave his evidence in chief and Mr. Pethorick opened his cross-examina-tion. One of the principal contentions of tho plaintiff was that it had been represented to him that the company, formed by Heyes "to keep the paper out of the hands of the Reform Party," had ample capital, and that he was never informed why money was not available for _ development purposes, except from his working account. In reply to Mr. Petherick, he denied any knowledge of a debt of £1500 due from the company to the Bank of Now South Wales. That sum, he said, was jiaid out of the company's money to meet a, debt of Frank Hyde, the late proprietor of the paper, to the bank. Hyde had been backed by Hamilton Gilmer and Heyes, and the company's money had been ' used by Heyes to pay the debt in full and save Hamilton Gilmer. The other unsecured creditors had only had 6s 8d in the &,. Tho pliiintifl' said that, while he had full knowledge of the slate of I,hc business itself — which would have flourished but for the happenings in connection with the company— he could learn nothing of tho state of the company. Cross-examined regarding the use of tho words ''fully paid-up" in connection with shares in the company, plaintiff said he was not an expert in such matters, and proceeded to make a statement about the shares, when his Honour stopped him. He suggested that the plaintiff should not make admissions when he did not know Mio meaning of technicalities employed, lest he should admit moro than he intended. Referring to the visit of Mr. W. J. Napier to Whangarei, Mr. Petherick asked the plaintiff whether Mr, Napier had not been taken there with the object of settling a difference in the interests of tho paper. His Honour : It is not usual to carry a lawyer about to settle things in this way. Mr. Petherick ; He was to be the peacemaker. His Honour rejoined that in that capacity the legal profession would be adopting an entirely new role. It would be ridiculous. He imagined it was really because Mr. Napier had "the gift of the gab," and could talk down the plaintiff, who had a similar accomplishment. Plaintiff further asserted that Heyes, while at Whangarei, did nothing so far as he could see. He denied having attempted to engineer a strike in the Advocate office. When he had been dismissed, the staff, in sympathy with him, offered to leave, but he had told them to stay at work. The Witness declared that while the articles of association showed that no one could become a shareholder without the consent of the company, Mr. Petherick himself had for a, few weeks and without consent become a shareholder in order to assist in the operations of tho company. Mr. Petherick asked how it was that such a shrewd man as the plaintiff had Eiiown himself to bo had. become involved in the company if it was as bad as ho now said it was. Cox replied that he had been told that reputable men like Mr. John Plimmer and Mr. Robert Hannah were behind the business. Who would be suspicious? In reply to tho question whether tho plaintiff had been trying Very hard to "get" Heyes, the plaintiff said he onlywanted his iu6ney back. Mr, Blair added, "give us the money now, and we will go no further." Commenting on the inclusion of M'Cluggage as a defendant. Mr. Petherick asked for an instance of misrepresentation by him. The plaintiff replied that in working the confidence trick one man usually did all the taking find the other came in at the finish. M'Cluggage had been, in collusion, with Heyes all the lime, and at Whangarei heard Napier make statements which concealed the true position from plaintiff.