WANTED—A PARTNER

New Zealand Times, Volume XLVII, Issue 10868, 7 April 1921, Page 7

WANTED —A PARTNER

MAKING WIND-SHIELDS FALSE PRETENCE ALLEGED AGAINST ADVERTISER. IN A MOTOR GARAGE. Having been attracted by a nicelyworded advertisement in January lasts two men were persuaded to enter into negotiations with the advertiser, and after an interview paid him a sum of money,' which it was understood, would purchase the half-share in a partnership for the manufacture of an adjustable wind screen. However, having spent every penny on the proposition, and, finding it, to use his own words, “not a going concern/’ one of tile men deemed it advisable to seek the support of the law, and consequently figured as a witness against a young man named George William Thomas, who came before Mr H. W. Bundle, S.M., in the Magistrate’s Court yesterday on chargee of obtaining from Joseph Patrick? Beamish, on March 3rd, the sum of .6150 by falsely representing that he held patent rights for an adjustable wind screen; obtaining the sum of .£225 from James Barbery, on March 7th, by similar false pretences; and oh an additional charge of obtaining from James Barbery the; sum of £SO in money by falsely repre-i seating that Joseph P.' Beamish had agreed to enter into a certain deal m motor tyres, etc.

• “CAPTAIN THOMAS,” Joseph Patrick Beamish, engineer, residing at 31, Glenbervie road, said that on January 26th, 1921, he had seen ah advertisement in the “Evening Poet’’ for a partner in an engineering concern. He replied to the advertisement, and askeuthe advertiser to interview him. As a result of the letter, the advertiser paid a call, and first introduced himself to witness as “Captain Thomas, of the Flying Corps.” He said that he wanted a young man to go in with him for a patent wind screen, the patent rights of which he had held for Australia and New Zealand, and had only just sold the rights for Australia. He intended, he said, to sell the screens fo>* £6 10s. which would be cheaper than the imported articles. Later, witness went 'with the accused to the Hotel Trocadero. where ho was shown a wind screen. Accused stated that there was 3<ls clear profit on each screen. He offered the witness a share in the business for the sum of £75. He explained that he had been manufacturing them at Auckland, but had sold last year’s model, whereas the present contrivance was an improvement. He had a plant in Ghuznee street, and stated that the witness would 4 receive half of the profits. Witness decided to go into the business, but did not pay over’ any money at the time. On talking it Over the next day the accused! asked witness to consider his also becoming a partner in the garage at an extra sum of £75. Witness saw the inside of the garags, which contained one power boring machine, one power hack saw, and a Tans gye engine. He estimated the total' value at £l2O.

“BETTER IN THEIR POCKETS.” •On March 2nd the witness agreed to? entered into with the ao-' cased in respect to the patent righto and the garage. He paid over the sum of £l5O in notes on March. 3rd, and received a receipt written by Thomas. An agreement was also written by Thomasj but was never signed. When mention* ing the matter of having the business seen to by a lawyer, the accused said the money would be better in their own pockets. Accused had also explained to witness that he was negotiating with another man to sell half the rights of the wind screen for the sum of £3OO. Under a later arrangement, however, it was stated' that the witness was to hold a. quarter share only. Other names were introduced as likelv members of the company. -

A PLEA OP "HARD UP.” Until March. 7th no agreement had been signed, no wind shields had been made, and witness had only received £t by pleading that he was "hard up.” There was no part of the garage in which the wind screen could be made* and most of the parts had to be manufactured by outside firms. On March 7th the accused introduced another man named Barbery. The witness was then asked to sign a form transferring the rights of the accused to witness and Barberry. Witness had never seen the man Barberry before. The form was then taken to. the patent office •by Thomas and handed • in. A receipt waN given at the patent office, and later the agreement was signed, and .Barberry and witness were given a copy each. THE WEEKLY WAGE FIXED. With the exception of the £1 witness had not received any money, and in the. agreement it was stated that he should receive £6 10s weekly from the profits. Witness knew of no deal in connection with motor tyres nor had he been asked to enter into suoli a deal. A man named King was introduced to witness os * commercial traveller, who was going to take the wind screens on a commission basis. “TIME TO OUIT.” On March 19th, witness told Thomas that he could see no prospects of success, and would have to sever his connection with the business. Accused told him of a means of making soma money by helping with a Sunbeam car, when asked for money the accused said he could rot give him any, as he had had to pay tha sum of £8 as rent for the garage. Thomas intimated that be was thinking of calling on Barberry and witness foranother hundred pounds each. Witness said he could give no more money, «a he did not have any more. He suggested that witness advertise to sell his patent rights, and said that it would be better, as he (accused) had already one advertisement in the paper. Be produced the name of a prospective purchaser. and advised the witness to ask •for the sum of £3OO, of which amount ;the witness was to receive £225, thus severing bis partnership. Witness also saw a letter from the patent office, which stated that as there were a number of sdjustable wind screens on the market the particulars fnrnished were too vague. THE MOTOR TYRE "DEAL.” On March 21st witness met Barberry and Thomas at the garage, and when psked by Barberry about the deal in motor tyres Thomas had replied that he “thought that witness 'was agreeable Bo 'the deal.” Barberry questioned Thomas about an alleged statement made by the accused that witness had paid in the sum of £225, whioh discussion was heard by witness. Witness consulted his solicitor, and ■was advised. to make application for a refund of his money. Thomas suggested that witness be paid off, and that Barbery and accused get to work to “boost the business,” and then sell out. Barbery then accused Thomas and witness of putting their heads together. Witness later learned that the business was not a “going concern.” It was not until some time after receiving the receipt from Thomas that witness found that it bad not included the payment for a share in the wind shield.

MOTOR-CARS ANl> DRIVING. To Mr Sievwright: It was his desire to "get into the wind shield business.” He had certainly come out from America, but not to drive a particular make of car. He was employed in New Zealand to drive the car which had been imported. He intended to teach people to drive. Witness bad suggested that the name of the business be called the “U.S.A. Motor Repair Works,” which was adopted. Witness was not informed that the sum of £195 had been-paid by

Thomas for the plant of the garage. He had seen a Stndebaker car in the garage, and understood that it belonged to Thomas, himself, but not to the business. Witpess was going to drive np a party of' people to see Rotorua, at Wanganui, the job was worth £2O, and the accused gave the witness the «uui of £2 to buy benzine. However, at the last moment the people had refused to travel in the car.

At- this stage' it was intimated that evidence of a lengthy nature had still to be called, and His Worship adjourned the case till next Wednesday, making a special fixture. Bail was allowed in the sum of £IOO to be deposited with the clerk of the court on the condition that accused report to the police doily.