COLOURED FILMS

Evening Post, Volume CXIII, Issue 138, 15 June 1927, Page 10

COLOURED FILMS

SEQUEL .TO INVENTION

INVESTOR DISSATISFIED

ACTION FOR ACCOUNTS

The action for the taking of accounts brought by some interest holders in a concern for the reproduction of cinematographic films in natural colours was continued before the Chief Justice (his Honour Sir Charles Skerrett) in the Supreme Court to-day. Several of the shareholders alleged that the trustees had remitted moneys to an inventor, William Reid, and one F. W. Mothes, after, they knew that the venture had failed, and said the trustees-had failed to take proper diligence. They asked the Court to administer the trust. The allegations were denied by the trustees. EVIDENCE CALLED. Frank Broomfield, an engineer in the employ of the Public Works Department, said that he first became interested in the venture in October, 1924, when he attended a demonstration by Reid and a Mr. Sproule, of coloured, films and lantern slides, represented as having been produced by Reid. It was claimed that Reid could produce 100 lantern slides by, the process' for the former "cost of one., One of the slides was of a 'garden of flowers. • The reproduction, said the witness, was not perfect. It was further claimed that a coloured negative could be produced within eighteen hours of. making the exposure.' Witness promised to invest £25, and paid £5 on account. Reid represented himself as the inventor of a moving picture camera," though at that time he said ■he could reproduce coloured photos _in still objects only. He said he' required glass for the moving picture camera not obtainable in New Zealand, and even if it were, ifc could not' be worked her^e. Another special feature ■■ 'was a colour filter, which! in. the event of being, detected, would be. destroyed. . Witness later met Mr. Mothes, ,whp, he was informed, was leaving-for England' with Reid. Wit?', ness produced receipts for £975, his. interest in the venture. In January, 1925, Reid and Mothes left for England. After that witness did not know exactly what was happening at the meetings of the trustees in connection with the process. In August, 1925, he was told to go to England to represent the trustees, his authority being given at a. meeting held on 17th v August, 1925. The trustees told him that they had not received reports from Reid and Mothes in England; that they had cabled for reports and for vouchers, but that neither' had been 'forthcoming. They coiisVlered it necessary to send. a reasonable man' to England. The trustees wanted a man to take the place of Mothes, who had cabled his willingness to resign. ARRIVAL IN ENGLAND. Witness said that'he arrived in England 'in October, 1925, and proceeded to Mayfield House, 1 Bedfont/ Middlesex, j about fourteen miles out of . London, where Reid and'Mothes had their residence. They had taken the place also for the purpose of installing the plant. He saw Mothes the.day lie arrived, but never again. The next day he went back to Mayfield House, but Eeid made no explanation of Mothes' absence, and said he could not explain-it. When he first arrived at Mayfield House he gave Reid and Mothes letters telling them what he required, and asking Mothes to hand over his. power bfattor-' noy. Mothes gave him' an order for the document, which-was lodged at: the High Commissioner's Office. - Witness said he got .Reid to draft a rep.oi-t. as to what he had done in. England.' '.The report stated among other things; that a prism- was being manufactured in England for the taking of moving pictures in one operation. Later,,while in London he learnt from Reid on the telephone that Mothes Was going away and was not returning. Witness went to Mothes' bankers and learnt that the trust funds were in an account under:. Reid's own name. The bankers would not.accept the witness's power of attorney. On 12th October'the witness went to live at Mayfield, and got Reid to prepare a financial statement. Witness' said he questioned Reid . about the cables sent, from England to the trus--tees reporting progress on' the work, and Reid confessed that they were false. Ho said that there was no moving camera, and there were no German glasses as had been,reported. , His Honour: '.'He'admitted that'the whole thing was a swindle?" » Witness: "He admitted' that the cables were false." His Honour: "He admitted that they had not designed 'the camera; that Mothes was not getting German glasses, and that he had riot got German glasses as was stated. What do you call that as an ordinary man of commonsense?" Witness: "Misrepresentation." His Honour: "I would call it a much stronger term." • • . Witness said that '. Beid had later niado attempts to. produce coloured films, and failed absolutely. Ho said that Reid had produced nothing of a marketable value, and ,ho .fold thp trustees they should recall them both. The trustees decided to retaiiv Reid on a salary of. £7. a week. _■'■_-■ "TOUCHING- INCIDENT OF SYMPATHY." His Honour: "It seems to be a touching incident of > sympathythat,lhey' should-offer £7 a week to a man who has made these admissions." • The witness said he had cabled the trustees that Reid was playing false and insisted-'on him being recalled. The trustees cabled: '' We suggest forming company £250,000; we receive fifty thousand cash, 100,000 sharos; on successful flotation we give promoter twenty thousand cash and twenty-five thousand,out.of our portion; find speculative rather than conservative promoters. .-.•."■-.

"Witness said he replied stating that the trustees must endorse his refusal to form the company and instruct him to return.

(Proceeding.)