A PROMISSORY NOTE

Evening Post, Volume CVI, Issue 33, 8 August 1923, Page 11

A PROMISSORY NOTE

THEATRICAL MEN IN COURT

A dispute over a promissory note was ftie subject of civil proceedings before Air. E. Page, S.M., at the Magistrate's Court yesterday. The plaintiff was Albert Russell, a revue producer, and the defendant Nat Phillips, better known as •'Stiffy," of tho "Stiffy and Mo Revue Company." According to Mr. W. L. Rothenberg, counsel for the plaintiff, the defendant nad bought some revues from Russell, for which £150 was to be paid. This took place at Brisbane in June, 1916, and £125 in cash was tendered, the remaining £25 being covered by a promissory note given by Phillips. The note nad not been redeemed, hence tho litigation.

Considerable legal argument took place as to the contention of counsel for the defendant, Mr. White, that six years had elapsed since tho note fell due, aud the amount, according to tho Statute of Limitations, was therefore not recoverable. Mr. Rothenberg maintained that as the defendant had not come to New Zealand until quite recently :be position in this regard was greatly altered.

Called by Mr. Rothenberg, the plaintift described his transactions with Phillip? when the pair were in Brisbane in 1916. Witness was the proprietor of the Bletsoe Revue Company at the time, and fir-ally 'agreed with the defendant that he should take over the scripts, scenery, costumes, and effects used in the revue for £150. Witness was given an order toy £125, which was-to'be presented to Fullers' Theatres, Ltd., and the amount was subsequently paid. The promissory note, the subject of the present proceedings, was given for th& balance of the money, the note to fall due within six months. When the " p.n."' was duly presented, it wa3 dishonoured, and payment had not since been made.

Mr. Rothenberg:" Had you made any demands for payment before issuing tiie summons?"

Witness: " Yes; he was written to in Ai-strnlia, just after the note fell due." "Did you make any further demands?" — " Yes, immediately Phillips arrived in New Zealand this year, I wrote to him when he was in Auckland." WHAT IS A REVUE! Questioned by the Bench as to what actually constituted a revue, the witness replied that it was a pot pourri of theatrical works, some songs, some actions, talk, and properties, put together to form an " evening's entertainment. A semblance of a plot ran through the piece. . ■Philip Nathan Phillips, in evidence, said ho played part of the revues for three and a half months, and then a strike upset matters, and resulted in the company going into liquidation. The performers were out of work for about six weeks until they finally secured engagements with a pantomime, ." The Bunyib." Mr. White: "In January 1917, -were you showing these revues? —Witness: "No. I was not." Mr. Rothenberg: "What, were the names of the revues?"—" I think they included " Vocation Time," " Palmistry Up to Date," "Be Beautiful," and " Kun in a Sanatorium." '. Further cross-examined, the defendant denied that he had used the revues in heir entirety. It was necessary to alter scripts to suit the artists. He admitted writing to the plainiff the letter produced, in which he stated that he, Phillips, was under the impression that "the matter (the promissory note) had been fixed up with Russell by Sir Benjamin Fuller. / ._'■ ■ - Mr. Rothenberg: " Where did you get tli*. money you paid Russell?"— Witness: "It was loaned to me by Sir Benjamin Fuller." "Are you sure that you did not sell to him?"—"No; how could I sell? He took over from me because I could nol keep up the repayments." "Now, that's too thin. Why did you say that Sir Benjamin took over after .hree weeks?"—" Perhaps-I should have said three months. ■ I was speaking roughly, of course, and three years is a long time." ABOUT "GAGS.""Did you "cay that 'The Tree of Truth ' gags were used in one pantomime"—" They may have been, but I did not work them." " Were any other gags from these scripts used?"—" Not that I know of." '" You are staging several revues in New Zealand,' are you not?"—" Yes." "Do you use a scene called .'The Mad Actress'?"—" No." " I want you to be very careful about your answer?"—"No; I have not used it since Sydney." '■ Do you use a scene approximating to Tho Mad Actress 1?"—" No; you are referring to tho pantomime sanatorium scene, which I. don't play." "So. Sir Benjamin Fuller had 60 much good feeling towards you as to buy you, or, rather, to finance you to buy, these properties from Russell? Ho set you. to boost up this show in Sydney, altbough to all intents and purposes you were running in opposition to him." Yes, it would be in opposition to him, but you must understand where this theatre is situated, and what prices are charged." . ... " Now, this is what you put to the Court : You cay, in answer to your own counsel, that you used this stuff for three and a half months. Then, in a letter ,to a- local firm of solicitors (Messrs. Luke and Kennedy) you say, in 1917, 'I only used it for two months.' ' Later you begin to forget a bit, and write saying that you have never' used the: scripts, while you finally admit that you used them for only three, weeks. You have made four different and inconsistent statements. Which is the correct one?" Counsel for the defendant protested that Mr. Rothenberg was making a lengthy speech to the witness, who"was not being given a fair chance to answer. Further questions were asked of the witness by the Magistrate, who finally intimnted that he would take time to cinsider the matter. Decision accordingly was reserved.