THE COMMERCIAL ARBITRATION AGENCY.

NZ Truth, Issue 158, 27 June 1908, Page 5

THE COMMERCIAL ARBITRATION AGENCY.

VANDA WHITE'S GREAT SCHEMES.

Did He Victimise Rosina Wright?

WHAT HAPPENED AT OTAKI.

,On Wednesday when the case was resumed, Vanda White continued his evidence. He stated that he had never pressed witness to hand'-* over her money. E[e did not take advantage of \ her ignor- | ance, but wanted to get fixed up as he had other applications. The witness emphatically denied the conversation which plaintiff said had taken place with regard to the. agreement between the parties. Plaintiff never suggested that she thought she had signed a different agreement to that which she had read out. /The plaintiff had written letters to collect thirty accounts coring the first day or two. Plaintiff was not very busy, during the first week ; the second week was taken up with Easter holidays. The third and fourth weeks he went round the town and advertised for canvassers. Witness did not' remember the yarn plaintiff had related regarding his quarrelling with canvassers. .Witness had, obtained 18 subscribers to his agency since starting business. Three more had booked but had not paid the ■ guinea subscription and nine were non-members, who deposited' a shilling ' on each account rendered for collection. Witness had had accounts to the value of £500 to collect with the pro-, mise of another £2000 worth. HE COULD NAME THE CLIENTS if necessary, plaintiff hati no objection to signing receipts, but had made some demur to signing cheques. He denied absolutely having suggested that the ■ plaintiH should get ladies to teach them typewriting—"take them m to take them down.". The premium which, he suggested the young ladies should pay was merely to protect the office from divulging Secrets and the contents '.of : private reports. There had been no 'talk of sending plaintiff to open a bugiiiess at Palmers ton North. She was to Kaye - gone to an office there m case "a- 'lroal lady with a knowledge of . office routine could be obtained: The advertisement which caused Mrs and Miss Holder to, call on him had been prompted by plaintiff and witness and inserted by him. PlaiStiff had said she was going home.' , £?he said, "You told me I could sell out my share, could you get someone, to take my place ?" She suggested that he should advertise. He asked her if she would be satisfied with £30 and she said she would, but would like to get more. It was agreed that it should be sold for £60, of . which plaintiff was; to get £40, leaving witness £20. It was not unusual for' Miss Wright' to I leave the office when Mrs and Miss Holder called, as it -was the custom' for her to go out if two people called' to see him. MissNWright had never suggested to him, after ; the Holders left, that he had been prevaricating. Witness told plaintiff . he had banked her money and was willing to show her the pass-book, but she said she ' did not want to see it. She said she would have to. get her money back at once, or she . . | v WOULD SMASH /UP THE BUSINESS. I The money had almost all been spent 'in the working expenses' of'' the business. He took the key of the office, as he said he might as well be m possession, seeing that she was leaving. Witness sent plaintif! to his solicitor, Mr Levvey,, through whom he offered a cheque for £15, payable at the end of/ the month. , Witness subsequently ha.d Visits from the police, and then a summons. ' Witness .did not take plaintiff to Otaki; but went himself by the 4.15 train on the Tuesday. Plaintiff, went by the same train, but witness did not' know she was g9ing. There was a tangi going on 'at Otaki when they got there a»d witness and plaintiff . • •• , WENT' TO SEVERAL HOTELS together, which were full. Finally they went to the Jubilee Hotel. (Witness here said, he was on his defence and was quite prepared to say nothing more.) Witness and plaintiff booked one room. - Miss Wright left at 9.20 on the' following morning, and witness went on to Palmer--ston and returned on Wednesday night. It was witness's intention originally to go to and stop at Otaki, and he mentioned it to plaintiffs After witness had asked for a room he told he? she. had better go and si^ down m the Commercial Room. Witness gave plaintiff a glass of wine, and the servant showed her up to. her room. Witness had introduced the plaintiff to the landlady as "Mrs White*" Mr Von Haast : Does -not that name sound like Miss Wright ?" Witness: Well, yes. Cont nuing, White said it was at plaintiff's suggestion that he booked a double room. . Plaintiff did not say when - : she found herself m the double room that She was going downstairs;. , Witness did not place his back to the door ai>d ask her to Kay nothing as he had a wife and children and would be ruined if* she said anything. Witness did not tell ihe girl that if she would stay he wquld not insult her. Witness did not know; whether 'the girl sat on a chair all night and left by the first train next morning. Witness did not occupy the iobm with the girl, but walked (about all night m the bathroom and about the passages^ The girl followed him to Otaki unknown to witness. Witness* went to the hotel because she said she had something to tell him that meant money.' Witness on his own showing owed plaintiff. £15, but had not -paid it, thoughvthe month had passed by.-Wit-ness was m Dunedin for about six months and . TOOK A PARTNER IN m July, 1907. The partner paid £15 for a half share m the business and bought the business out m December. Witness had a slight misunderstanding with the man who bought him out. Witness did not owe the man (named Ha why) money but there was a dispute. A Miss Hercus entered the business m Dunediri and paid £15. Witness was bought, out m- Christchurch on March 4th for £20 and a p.n. for £20. The p.n. was got from witness by a trick and torn up. On March 14, Mr Yates, who had bought him out, wrojie asking witness to come to Christchurch. At the interview a man came into . the room and then yates complained" that he was not satisfied with the business. Yates got the p.n. from witness by stating that the stamp was valueless and promised to sign another, but when., his friend came m Yates destroyed the note and refused to sign another. White said he had trouble, with his partrisrs all along. Witness had done nothing to recover the p.n Yates did not accuse him of having collected accounts'and failing to accqunt for them. He had accounted to all the Ohristchurch- tradesmen whose accounts he had collected. Witness had eighteen 'people on 'his books, but there were only, the Otaki accounts m the boov when Miss Wright left. Witness owed some private accounts, but they had nothing to do with the business. White admitted haying gone under the name of Searle m Melbourne.

The interesting case m which Rosina Wright sued- Vanda White claiming £30 alleged to have been obtained from her by defendant by fraudulent misrepresentation was continued before Dr. McArthur, S.M., on Monday and "concluded on Thursday. Vanda AVhite, defendant, examined m reference to the Otaki trip, said he ,was anxious to avoid a scandal and, it did not occur to him. to give another name. He was well-known m Otaki, having canvas : sed the district. In addition to advertiser ments inserted m the "Post" and "Dominion," advertising for partners, witness had prohablv placed three or four others for a typiste and a partner. He remembered an advertisempnt signed "Minerva" as .follows : — • ■ . WANTED lady for office. Typewriting and clerking taught free ; rising salary, smalL premium.— Minerva. "Dominion" office. ' i A lady saw him and he asked for £15 part of which she was to get back. Witness wrote to a certain lady m this connection and she came to interview: him.. Later a gentleman friend of a lady's saw him. This was after Miss Wright left. The statement made by Miss Wright that witness " ■ . • HAD A SIMILAR ARRANGEMENT with others was correct. Witness explained that m connection with the advertisement for medical agency business he; )was to interview likely persons to get a commission for referring theni to the principal. Witness did not know the principal's address, although he had come from Christchurch to Wellington. Miss Wright had opportunities to see the pass-book as it was on the office table. There were no moneys, paid into , the bank during Miss Wright's term other than • the d 82.8 (portion of complainant's deposit) . There had been an item of fifteen shillings paid m since complainant left. Witness had received a number of subscriptions ■ of One guinea, for which he had to supply ; eotffidential reports when requested for a period of one year. - For the £60 *hat was asked of Mrs :Holder for her . ! daughter she wouW receive, the benefit of his 2u years' organising experience. . Mr Von Haasfe : You got the cash, Uhey got the experienced ' ■ Mr Levvey desired to put m a lsttfti), said to have been' written by Mr Hawley, who had ' - . '■■' ■ PURCHASED DEFENDANT'S DUN-' EDIN BUSINESS, .to. defendant, :\>n the 20th May. .^ Mr Von Haast objected to any i letter being put m which had bfrei written "Slhee; the proceedings commenced. ■ Thd'allefted Writer of. the letter, who was m Wellington, should be put m the box so tbat he cduld be subjected td cross-examination. Mr Levvey produced, a letter written by. Mr Yates.-of Christchurch, m connection with the Uhristchureh business, Mr:*yon Haast claimed that he should be allowed to i cross-examine oni the, letters, as notice had been served on defendant to produce them, but he had previously failed 'to do so, stating that he. 1 had. not had time. , , .. Mr Levvey urged that Mr Vons Haast had no right to The letters had not been'; called for. His Worship "allowed the letters to b» put m and reserved the point as to whether Mr Von Haast/should cross-examine. Witness, continuing, said he had no* paid the £15, v shen r due, /as, owing to( plaintiff threatening; to smash up' th 6 business and. theh\rUnnih£ to Ihe- pdice he thought it 'advisable to hana; on to w S at iJ Ga w v there was on hatid. To his Worship : Miss Wright jknew w|V, ness was. goint to Otaki. Witaiess did riot ask her to go with him. He went from iis' own house an3\^rst saw her m !the ManaWatu train sitting m a Carriage as he str6lled,thrbuKh the train. Miss Wright said she had something to say to him and knew he was going, by the train and ihought she would catch him on the irain. As they We/c near to Otaki he told her to tell him when they reached Otaki. i - ■■ ' , WHY DID YOU NOT^ SEND HER BACK? ' . " - Defendant : Because there was no train. ( His Worship : There Was a train, ari<t t if you were so anxious to avoid scandal! Why did you not send her home by the rain., You could have heard all shfe hart to say on the platform. You know her statement is, that you took her to Otaki The train, gets, to Otaki at 6.58 and there (is a train leaving otaki at 7.38 p.m., which would: allow you 40 .minutes to transact <this important business. Witness persisted he did not know there was a train. ' ' This concluded the evidence. .His Worship reserved judgment until Thursday. Dr.-McArthur on Thursday ' found that White had obtained the money by false representation and gave a verdict lot, plaintiff with cost!?. Moreover,. Ihe M^pistrate denounced White m very scathing terms. p ' ■ •■ .