SANGER'S CIRCUS.

New Zealand Herald, Volume XL, Issue 12213, 7 March 1903, Page 2 (Supplement)

SANGER'S CIRCUS.

PROPRIETOR • GIVES AMUSING AC- , COUNT 'OF THE SALE. The famous Sanger Circus was lately the subject 01 litigation in the King's Bench Division. Air. Justice Ridley and a special jury heard the case, which was an action by Mr. George Sanger, the well-known proprietor of the circus, against Mr. Clement Vincent Haworth, of Poulton-le-Fylde, Lancashire, to recover £35,000, which plaintiff alleged was due to him under an agreement. Plaintiff, in July, 1897, gave a Mr. Opensliaw a four months' option to buy his circus with a view of forming a company and floatinn' it. This Mr. Opensliaw did with defendant, Mr. Haworth, and plaintiff's case was that about) the time that the option expired he declined, as he had power to do under the agreement, to go to allotment, as the public subscription for shares was not in his opinion large enough. Thereupon, he said, an agreement was arrived at to the effect that if he consented t'o go to allotment, which he did, defendant would pay him £35,000. That sum he now claimed. Defendant denied the agreement, and said there was no consideration for it. He also contended that to be a valid one it should, under the Statute of Frauds,' have been in writing. . It was stated in the course of the case.that. Mr. Haworth one day rode in the procession through the streets to see what the show was like. Continuing, Mr. Isaacs said that the prospectus ' which was issued offered 83,334 shares for public subscription, the balance of 41,666 being taken by Mr. Sanger, the promoters' profit being £25,000. Mr. Sanger never kept any books. His system was at irregular intervals to bank the surplus. The profits so banked in 1894 amounted to £14,570, in 1895 £11,400, and in 1896 £13,120. The average weekly profit was estimated at £544. Mr. George Sanger, plaintiff, in tin* wit-ness-box, said he had been in the circus business since the Coronation of Queen Victoria. He was now in his 75th year.. He started with one pony. He bought a pony at Croydon for eight sovereigns, and that was the beginning of the show. He had carried 011 the business successfully, having gone through the rough and smooth of it. Opensliaw told him that lie was very old. He would hot be able to carry it 011 much longer, and that it would be a nice thing for him to receive a large sum of money. Ho consulted his wife, and she said, " Don't do it, George." (Laughter.) In spite of her advice, he stupidly entertained the offer. (Laughter.) In the end he gave the option, dated July 1, 1897. He was introduced to Mr. Haworth as a millionaire cotton manufacturer of Manchester and Blackburn, and when he had ridden round in the ■ principal carriage in the show defendant said, " I am perfectly satisfied. I will take all the shares myself." He thought then that the whole show was sold and gone. He declined to over-estimate the profits, and did what was honest between himself and the public. At the meeting in October, when defendant made the promise about the £35,000, Dr. Hogg, Mr. Haworth, and Mr. Openshaw, and several others were present. He did not think the capital subscribed was sufficient, and Mr. Haworth said in a guarded manner, "What do you want? How much do you want?" "Well, sir," I said, "if you will give me £35,000 and my shares I will allow the show to go to allotment." Mr. Haworth took a step backwards and said, "I will promise to pay you that amount." The witness said, "All right; then let the show go." Up to that time he had never seen the prospectus or the articles of association. The company went to allotment. He had been a bit of trickster as a performer—-(laughter)—but he never saw a man so clever as defendant. At Llanelly defendant came up and asked him how things were going, and he said, "Not very well;" and Haworth replied, "Never mind," and put two .money cartridges containing £250 in notes and gold into his hand. He counted the money with his secretary. He had gone round the country with the show for the company, and had never, received a penny up to this time. He had guaranteed six per cent, dividend, and the company had paid eight, ten, and six per cent. In the ten per cent, dividend there was included the £6500 accumulated profits, which he had given, up. In the third year he was called 011 to make up the six per cent, he had guaranteed. Mr. Haworth and others approached him" at the Crystal Palace with a view to his receiving a testimonial on his 10th birthday, and asked him to go to Manchester. He said lie did not like gifts, though he had two from the dear old Queen." Defendant said it would be an advertisement, and it was arranged purely as an advertisement. He was told to get what he liked, and the shareholders would pay for it. He bought something worth between £300 and £400, and defendants and his friends saw it. He asked Mr. Haworth then about the £35,000. They were " boozing" round a little table—(laughter)—with a little drop of whisky. (Laughter.) Haworth said the shares were going up to 22s 6d or 255, and another man said they would be worth 30s. Haworth said to him, "Get out of the way," called one of the waiters, and again changed the conversation. (Laughter.) He had the presentation, and paid for it. (Laughter.) On one occasion, in the office of witness' solicitors, defendant would not say a word, and witness got so vexed with him that lie threw his hat down and trampled on it, making it an ugly shape. (Laughter.) Of the £11,000 odd he was supposed to receive, £6500 consisted of the accumulated profits and the other £5000 he paid to the promoters. He got nothing, therefore, and the show had cost him £40,000 in hard money since the company floated. Cross-examined by Mr. Shee : There was not a scrap of paper about the £35,000 down to February 28, 1901. Ho had not taken a man's word for £35,000 before, but he had taken Lord Mayor Nottage's word for a contract of £2000. He had also taken Mr. Bar-' mini's for £18,000 when he supplied him with the " Congress of Monarchs," and sent the whole bag of tricks to America. (Laughter.)

The lunch interval here came 011, and, on resuming, Mr. ' Isaacs announced that the case had been settled on terms. Whatever imputations were made by Mr. Sanger against Mr. Haworth He now withdrew unreservedly. Mr. Haworth, moreover, had agreed to transfer to Mr. Sanger all the shares standing in his name in Sanger's Cir cus—some 3000 odd—and to transfer certain other shares. Another gentleman, whose name it was unnecessary to mention, had agreed to transfer certain other shares to Mr. Sanger, and plaintiff had agreed to accept these transfers in settlement of the action.

A juror was withdrawn on terms endorsed on the counsels' briefs.