A JAZZ EVENING

Evening Star, Issue 20311, 21 October 1929, Page 3

A JAZZ EVENING

EARTHQUAKE RELIEF ENTERTAINMENT MAYOR CHALLENGES BALANCE-SHEET [Per United Press Association.] WELLINGTON, October 19. Dissatisnecl until the accuracy of the balance-sheet; produced by the promoters ol a jazz evening in the town ball several months ago/ the proceeds of which were to go to tho earthquake reliel fund, tho mayor (Mr Troup) took action against the promoters— Morris, T)omb, and Charles Forrest —in tho Magistrate’s Court recently. He claimed that the gross amount taken by tho defendants was substantially in excess ot the sura shown on the balance-sheet, and that a number ot items shown as debits should not have been incurred, or were not chargeable against the land. Decision in the case was given by Mr Page, S.M., in the Magistrate’s Court to-day. .\l'tcr reviewing the evidence given at tho hearing, Mr Page said there was obviously not much evidence available to plaintiff in his attack on the accuracy ot tho amount piofessed to have been taken at the entertainment. Such records as would substantiate the amount were available to defendants only. For plaintiff some witnesses had been called to give (with a view to calculating the probable gross receipts) their estimate of tho number of people present at the entertainment. These witnesses, said the magistrate, estimated the number as being substantially in excess ot that indicated by defendants’ balance-sheet, but tho estimates could not profess to bo very accurate. The takings at the door were in charge of two doorkeepers, each supplied with roll-numbered tickets, ami at the end of the evening the cash was balanced against the number of tickets issued, and the result entered by each doorkeeper on a card, which, with the unused portions of the rolls, was handed over to the defendants. At the hearing neither of the doorkeepers was able to state with any degree of certainty the amounts taken by him. For tho defence Forrest had given evidence, but neither the cards nor tho unused portions of the rolls of tickets (which would have disclosed the number sold at tho doors) had been produced. Dornb, who engaged the ticket sellers, and subsequently prepared the balancesheet, did not go into the witness box. Tho evidence as to the sale of tickets that had been issued prior to the date of the entertainment was in a similar position, No record of any sort whereby the proceeds therefrom could bo checked had been produced at tho hearing. “ While I regard the evidence called "for tho defendants relating to these matters as vague and unsatisfactory, I am unable, with so little evidence available, to find affirmatively that the receipts were, in fact, greater than tho amount shown in the balancesheet. With regard to the expenditure, amongst tho items is a sum of £lO 10s retained by defendants to reimburse themselves for their own' expenses and loss of time in organising the entertainment. I think that, by the terms on which they were allowed tho use of the town hall, they are not entitled to retain this sum. The remaining disbursements cannot, 1 think, be disturbed.”

Judgment was entered for plaintiffs for lOgs, with costs to scale.