STARTLING ALLEGATIONS.

New Zealand Herald, Volume XXXIX, Issue 11986, 7 June 1902, Page 2 (Supplement)

STARTLING ALLEGATIONS.

BOULDERS SUED BY THEIR LATE * ■■ ,>,,;r -.::• MANAGER. :.v..v-.v. .EXTRAORDINARY EVIDENCE. Many allegations, some of a very serious /*■'•'; character, were heard by Mr: Justice .-,' Grantham and a special jury a few days ago, in the course of an action brought by Mr. : , William Albert Starling, late.manager and .'. secretary of the London office of Messrs. Houlder pros, and Co., Limited, .steamship ; owners and brokers, Liverpool, against that *- firm, to recover damages for wrongful dismissal. Defendants pleaded that they were ' justified in dismissing Mr. Starling, alleg- ' ing amongst other things, that he was : guilty of misconduct and immorality, that '-'. he improperly charged and was paid expenses in connection with his own private affairs, that he divulged the firm's business • to outsiders, and generally .acted against •' the interests of the firm. Mr. Isaacs (for plaintiff) said he had been in the employ of Messrs. Houlder Bros"/ twenty-one years. He was in receipt, of a salary" of £900 per annum, rising yearly .< "until* it reached a maximum of £1000. The agreement was for five years, and on October 2, 1900, he was summarily dismissed. - Counsel wou3d be able to show that it was to :: defendants' interest to get rid of Mr. Star- ": ling, and if possible to rum him • Many of the grave charges that had been brought Y, '.against plaintiff Lad. beeti disposed of before ' Sir. Justice Wright -and before the Court of Appeal in Ilia favour. It appeared that de-; fendants had some curious agreements With Mi Bergl, who was connected .with tlie meat trade in Queensland. In 1896 Bergl eot into financial difficulties, and it was to defendants' interests that he should be kept going. Accordingly, a Mr Lindley ; was sent out to Australia, to join Mr. Bergl. In 1898 Houlder Bros, was turned into a limited company, and subsequently Mr. Beral turned himself into a company, wbieli was"known as Beryl Australia. Limited. During the course of business Messrs. Houlder promoted ten steamship companies. and Mr. Starling became secretary of each, In 1889 a company was formed called ■■■-'' Houlder Lines. Limited,*which swallowed ' no all the ten small concerns. Mr. Starling was appointed liquidator of these companies. Defendants alleged in connection with these proceedings that plaintiff, becoming possessed of certain information, used it through * Mr Lindley, to the'detriment of the firm. "' "Messrs. Houlder Bros, was divided into two tamps;, one the younger members who wished to embark upon now and large ships and a general extension of the business to meet the growing competition, and the other • the older members, who were somewhat slow : to plunge into matters of ;?reat magnitude. The result was that Starling and Lindley ' *ided with the younger members of the firm. It was arranged that there should be a secret code between Lindley and the firm in ■England, and it was now alleged that this code was used by Mr. Starling for dishonest purposes. As a matter of fact, it was never , used. The matter that led to the dismissal of plaintiff was of the gravest possible character. It transpired' during the course of the last few months that plaintiff was in the firm's employ that there had been a system -in. Messrs. Houlders' office of defrauding underwriters ati Lloyds.' Counsel did not ac- •■":.'•■ cuse any particular member of the firm. •; These charges formed . the . subject of a , .separate action brought by the under- ? writers. Tfiis system of fraud had not been altogether unsuspected in the city, : and when the matter arose it'gave rise to no lit- , tie comment. The system, apparently, was :■.. one of "faked" accounts. The system was that, when a ship was in any. way injured, ''V repairs were executed, and the bill sent in ' to Messrs. Houlder. Another account was prepared, which was a false one. according to which the cost of repairs would be greatly, increased. This account would be « sent to the underwriters, and in the course of events would be paid. Mr. Lindley, who bad a quarrel with a member.of the firm, came v. back to • England, and at a shareholders' meeting of the defendant company ha asked if the allegations with respect to the alleged fraudulent accounts were true. The direc--1 , tors suspected Mr. Starling of having supr plied the information to." Mr. Lindley. and : plaintiff was accordingly ;-' dismissed .three ■ i davs after. As a matter of fact; plaintiff .- . knew nothing about it. In some subsequent proceedings defendants alleged 'that plaintiff had been guilty of gross immorality with four different women during the course of some years, and that lie was : [a ; married *' man. Mr. Starling had never disputed. that ; he was guilty of intimacy with the women from 1896 to -1900. It was not a matter, which affected defendants' right to dismiss him. ft was a matter solely between himL self, his wife, and his conscience. Defen- ■? dants alleged that plaintiff sent clerks to Brighton, Stepney, and other parts of London to these, women, and that he was away - during -long periods of. the day from the . office. .There appeared to be a time-book ]{, kept, and Mr. Starling's ■ absence and the 'time he arrived were duly noted. -Such a thing was ridiculous in regard to the mana- '' ger and secretary.' It was further alleged that Mr. Starling secretly corresponded with Mr. Lindlev and a Mr. Pat Gardner, a gentleman in the city, and'caused to be paid out of defendants' account* moneys which ought to have been paid by Mr. Starling. '•' There were a number of cab fares, and then ':" an item of 7s 2d for a pair.of, baby's shoes. (Loud laughter.) Then it was stated that plaintiff spoke in abusing and disparaging terms to the staff about the members of the firm,' and on one occasion, it was alleged, 'he.told a clerk that he knew enough about Messrs. Houlder Bros, and Co. to put hen- ,' all in the dock if they did not treat him ■properly.'."For five months three detective! had shadowed plaintiff's movements, and tin result of it all. was these trumpery anc - -','- absurd charges. Counsel asked for sub ' stantial damages.

Mr. Starling went into tie -witness-box and gave evidence. Witness said with mi ward to the secret code incident, in which It was alleged that plaintiff acted trenchermislv to the firm in his communications with ?; ; Mr.'Lindlev in Australia, it appeared that Mr. Frank Houlder, who was out in .Sydney, found the counterpart of the code. Mr. Honlder wired home, advising the suspension of plaintiff, but the cable was not acted upon. When Mr. Frank Honlder cam." home plaintiff asked that gentleman to , apologise for the accusation of treachery,? but he declined., With regard to the flotation of the Gulf Meat Company Messrs. Houlders endeavoured to compel Lindley to *. take 6000 shares. Witness cabled to Lindley. telling him' to keep his back stiff. . Mr. Isaacs: Is there any foundation for the charge of dishonesty with regard to the charging of expenses? Absolutely none. v Sir Robert Reid: Was not the drinking telegram a private communication, and you were told not tt communicate it to anybody? No. ' ' Did you take that telegram to Mr. Rat Gardner, another shipbroker in the city? :--.- No. ' '"* But you told him the contents of it? i • Part* of it. . f Mr. Gardner was not a member of the , '■ firm? ■~-,,..,-■ ■ ! &*-•■' | .: No.'. . , . : -•. i ■ / ■■■' Sir Robert Reid said this was a serious disclosure of a confidential document, j and that alone was' sufficient to justify hi?-, dismissal. Mr. Lindley had entered an action for libel against Mr. Frank Houlder in respect of the statement that he was linking heavily. .Whilst Mr. Frank Houlder was in Sydney he came upon a secret cod? between Lindley arid Starling, and Mr.' Houlder cabled to the firm in the following terms: *' Have found private code Lindley and Starling. Starling acting treacherously behind directors for last year. Suspend." :> i : In further cross-examinatie/n plaintiff admitted that he communicated with Lindley through Mr. Pat Gardner/the decision of • the directors after consultation with their solicitors with regard to some dispute that had arisen with the firm's representative in -.-. - Australia..-- ~.- ~. , ~ ~,-. ■ a.. • '."! His Lordship i Having got that informa.lion, you cable to Lindley telling him not to be bounced, and advising him to keep his v back stiff. v - , '•'.'.-"./, ' '■■■ V- Yes. : ' ; ' : "■■"■■' -> • /■ ■j. • '," 4uc7 -do' you tell the jury that that was in"accordance with youv duty ,as manager of this firm? . '/.' . /.- <•:. . : . ' I did not think it was inconsistent. His Lordship Haw. can the business ol this, city, or' any, other city, be conduciec if clerks communicate \ secretly behind tin backs of the directors?./ '^yr'-.

When the hearing of the action was taken up for the third day Sir Robert Reid obtained leave to further cross-examine plaintiff. Counsel : Did you tell Mr. Neville, a clerk in the office, that, there had been false accounts with underwriters, and that you intended to make use of the information? Plaintiff : I do not remember/ ■ His Lordship "(addressing Mr. Isaacs): Your charge was that defendants were guilty of dishonest conduct, and that they dismissed plaintiff in order to shut his mouth. lam not going to try the case with regard to the underwriting. Mr. .Isaacs: I do not ask your lorship or the jury to say that any one of the defendants knew of these frauds. It does not matter in this case whether all the partners or onlv one were responsible for the frauds. ' Sir Robert Reid : It is impossible for' the case about the underwriting, if there be a case at nil. to be tried here, and the defendants cannot come forward in this action and say what a lie the whole tiling is. Docs not that impose upon my friend, as a member of the Bar, an obligation not to make a, suggestion that cannot be tried? Mr. Isaacs (with considerable warmth) : I do most strongly resent Sir Robert Reid telling me what my duty is, which I know as well as he does! It is a fact that these frauds have occurred, and the only question is as to who is responsible for them. His Lordship: I hardly thought that the evidence von suggested justified your assumption "to the jury that these gentlemen had been guilty of fraud or felony. . Mr. Isaacs :* I will say again that these insurance frauds had occurred: It has been admitted in affidavit that there had been irregularities to the extent of £8000. • Sir Robert Reid submitted that there was no case to go to the jury, but his lordship thought on questions of fact the jury should decide. .*..,- - , : Sir Robert Reid: for the defence, argued that there could be very little doubt the plaintiff bod not acted as a faithful servant. and that his employers were amply justified in dismissing him.' It was said that there bad been fraud practised in the office of Messrs. Houlder Brothers against underwriters. Defendants would go into the wit-ness-box, and declare they were "perfectly innocent of what was going on in the office. Counsel characterised the actions of plaintiff as those of a spy. The further hearing was adjourned.