JAZZ BENEFIT EVENING.

New Zealand Herald, Volume LXVI, Issue 20391, 21 October 1929, Page 10

JAZZ BENEFIT EVENING.

MAYOR SUES PROMOTERS,

BALANCE-SHEET ATTACKED.

ITEM OF £lO DISALLOWED. [BY TELEGRAPH. —OWJf CORRESPONDENT.] WELLINGTON, Sund.y, Dissatisfied with the accuracy of the balance-sheet produced by the promoters of a "jazz evening" in the Town Hall several months ago, the proceeds of which were to go to the earthquake relief fund, the Mayor of Wellington, Mr. G. A. Troup, took action against the promoters, ■ Morris Domb and Charles Forrest, in the Magistrate's Court recently He claimed that the gross amount taken by the defendants was substantially in excess of the sum shown <ju the balance-sheet, and that a number of items sho4-n as debits should not have -i>ecn incurred, or were not chargeable against the fund. Decision in the case was given by Mr. E. Page, S.M., yesterday. After reviewing the evidence given at the hearing, the magistrate said there was obviously not much evidence available to the piaintiß in his attack on the. accuracy cf the amount professed to have been taken at the entertainment. Such records as woold sub. stantiate the amount were available to the defendants only. For the plaintiff some witnesses were, called to give, with a view to calculating the probable, gross receipts, their estimate of the number of people present at the entertainment.

These witnesses, said the magistrate, estimated the number as being substantially in excess of that indicated by th« defendants' balance-sheet., bat estimate! could not profess to be very accurate. Ths takings at the door were irr charge of two doorkeepers. Each was supplied with a roll of numbered tickets, and 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, were 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 them at the door.

For the defence Forrest gave evidence, but neither the cards nor the unused portions of the rolls of tickets, which would have disclosed the number sold at the doors, were produced. Domb, who en-®* gaged the ticket-sellers and subsequently prepared the balance-sheet, did not go into the witness box. The evidence aa to the sale of the tickets that had been issued prior to the date of the entertainment sva,s in a similar position. No record of any sort whereby the proceeds therefrom could be checked had been produced atr the hearing. "While I regard the evidence called for the defendants relating to thejp matters as vague and unsatisfactory," continued Mr. Page, "I am unable, with so little evidence available, to find affirmatively that the receipts were in fact greater than ' the, amount shown in the balance-sheet "With regard to the expenditure, among the itemis is a sum of £lO 10s retained by the 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 the use of the Town Hall they are not entitled to retain this sum. The remaining disbursements cannot, I think, be disturbed." .

Judgment was entered for the plaiutifi for £lO 10s, with costs to scale.