OSCAR ASCHE FACES BANKRUPTCY COURT

Manawatu Times, Volume XLIX, Issue 3491, 29 October 1926, Page 9

OSCAR ASCHE FACES BANKRUPTCY COURT

Famous Actor Who Made and Lost Fortunes £120,000 FROM CHU CHIN CHOW j LONDON, Sept. 21. ! This week the public examination took place in the Court of Bankruptcy of Mr. John Stanger Oscar Asche, the well-known actor-man-ager-producer. The receiving order wag made on a creditor’s petition in the County Court of Gloucester last May, but the proceedings were transferred to the High Court a month later. The debtor’s liabilities, according to his statement of affairs, amount to £44,311, of which £27,018 are treated as expected to rank fox dividend. The assets are valued at £13,915, and consist chiefly of two claims, and for £3OOO against a company in respect of royalties, and the other for £IO,OOO against an Australian company in respect of share in costumes, scenery, etc., of various productions. It appears that all the assets are absolved in part payment of a claim for taxes returned at £15,013. In an account respecting, the deficiency the debtor states that his income since May, 1923, has been £12,600, and he has received royalties to 1 rilling £ISOO. On the credit side of the account other items amount to £5300. On the other side of the account the debtor states that he had a deficiency in assets of £15,360 in May, 1923, and that his household and personal expenses, including Australian and New Zealand and income tax. have since amounted to £16,663, while professional expenses have totalled £7160. Other Items comprise certain expenses connected with “Chu Chin Chow,” £3OOO interest and costs on borrowed money f 1 GOO, and loss on production of “The Good Old Days,” £ISOO.

Over £IOO,OOO in Royalties. The debtor stated that he had been in the theatrical profession for over 32 years. During a number of years he had boon engaged as an actor-manager and producer. It was in I‘Jll that he produced "Kismet” at the Garrick Theatre and the piece was continued until January, 1912. It was in that month he w r ent to Australia. There he produced a number of the plays of Shakespeare, continuing to March, 1914. , “Kismet” was then reproduced in London, a’nd in August. 1916, "Ohu Chin Chow” appeared at His Majesty’s Theatre. That play was written by himself, and was finished by a private company. He received a salary of £BO a week and a share of royalties, which during the five years’ run of tho play brought him in £IOO,OOO. A musical play was produced at His Majesty’s In October, 1922. he being the author. It was called “Cairo,” and the salary he received amounted to £l5O. Ho also had a share in the royalties, which brought in a considerable sum of money. The play was a financial success, but it was withdrawn m the following May.

Australian Tour. Ho loft England for a tour in Australia and New Zealand in July, 1922, under an agreement with an Australian company ol theatrical managers. By the agreement ho was to receive a weekly minimum of £2OO, on account of 50 per cent, ot the profits. Altogether he produced eight plays. Ho had no financial statements rendered to him. to leaving Australia in July, 19-4. he instructed a firm of solicitors m Melbourne to prosecute his claim for accounts. He received a weekly account of receipts and profits. Ho. 1 however, contended that the latter included matters with which ho was not concerned. Ho was making an effort to obtain, in accordance with his agreement, his one-half share of the scenery, costumes and properties of the eight productions. The proceedings in Melbourne had been referred to the arbitrators in this, country named in the agreement. He had not been able to ootain possession of his documents in Australia but he would be willing to settle’ his claim for £IO,OOO. 1 hat value ho had attached to it in his statement of affairs.

His share of the royalties from ‘‘Kismet,” tiro debtor estimated, totalled £20,000. By way of royalties between the years 191 G and 1924. he had received something like £140,000, of which £120,000 was derived from "Chu Chin Chow.” Claim for Income Tax.

With regard to the question ot income tax, the debtor stated that whenever he received a demand note ho paid it. The Inland Revenue authorities, in a sudden nort of way, declared that, ho owed a good ieai more money. He had enough money in 1919 and 1920 to have paid such a claim, and he now contended that ho bad paid actually double income tax while on tour in Australia. It was pointed out by the Official Receiver, Mr Vyvyan, that the matter was of importance to the debtor's creditors, as a large claim was now being made in respect of income tax, which greatly affected his assets.

The debtor said that in past years he had always paid tax on demand. During .Tune of last year he received a fee of £4OO for producing a musical comedy for another person, and during the following October at the Gaiety Theatre he produced “The Good Old Days.” That was a musical comedy, he being the author. A private company financed the product ion, and ho put £IOOO into it. He received £I.OO a week during the short run of five weeks. The play was not a success. During, April last lie produced for another

person a modern comedy, putting £SOO into the venture. Until June he received £75 a week. Heavy Grey hound-Breeding liosses.

Debtor further stated that between 1914 and 1922 he was engaged. in breeding, training and running greyhounds. For that purpose lie rented in 1915 Sugley Farm, Nailsworth. He bought, that property during 1919 and 1920. By that enterprise he lost something like £SOOO a year. Before going to Australia he disposed of all his dogs. Amounts to the extent of £3377 were advanced on mortgage o£ the farm, but this liability was not expected to rank against the estate. The debtor had, by an agreement dated 20th July, 1922, arranged to sell the farm to a friend, together I with the adjoining buildings and i furniture, for £ISOO. This was subject to a mortgage to the extent of £2500. There was an option to repurchase for £2OOO within five years. The actual conveyance in favour of the purchase was not executed until a short time before the date of the receiving order. The option had not yet expired. Ho had always lived within his income until the last year. He had attended race meetings, and was a member of two race clubs. During the past three years he had been on the right side. As to the causes for his failure, debtor stated that he would have been under no obligation to borrow money had he received his share of the profits which he considered ho was entitled to on his Australian tour. A play was produced in London which proved a failure. His name was coupled with the production, although he was only a paid servant, and he reaped no good by this. Replying to Mr Gilbert Beyfus, who appeared for Mr F. S. Salaman, the trustee, the debtor said he had given a good deal of money away to charity, and in other similar ways. All the amounts he . had received had now practically vanished. Mr Registrar Sticbel concluded the examination.