SAGACIOUS SCHAPIRO.

NZ Truth, Issue 473, 11 July 1914, Page 7

SAGACIOUS SCHAPIRO.

Commissioners and Commission.

An Auckland Exhibition Aftermath.

v A rather, interesting civil action was ,heard at the Auckland Magistrate's Court on Tuesday, by Mr. C. C.. Kettle, S.M. when the Auckland Exhibition Commissioners claimed, from J. M. Schapjro, £200. - In the statement of claim the plain-, tiffs set forth that, m Fefruary, 1913, J. M. Schapiro applied for space for the purpose of exhibiting pictures. The space was allotted according to the bylaws and rules of the Exhibition! which provided that defendant should pay TEN" PER CENT. COMMISSION -• on all sales. Defendunt sold pictures to the value of £200. - Lawyer Hpimden appeared for the Commissioners, and Lawyer Brown for Schapiro. Lawyer Holmden m outlining the facts,, said that a number of contracts were made, but this was the only one the Commissioners intended to take action m. x The prospectus issued, by the Commissioners set . out the term,s upon which exhibitors could exhibit their goods and clause 13 of the rules clearly stated that a commission of 10 per cent, must be paid on -all sales. Schapiro, conducted an -art union and sold tickets. Though it was not anticipated that Schapiro had. sold £2000 worth of pictures, he had REFUSED TO ALLOW "HIS BOOKS to be viewed. The '-Commissioners therefore claimed the full commission. William Richard Holmes, accounWnt and secretary to the late Auckland Exhibition, said that he had a lengthy experience of exhibitions. After much correspondence, an application for space m Court 6, D, m the Palace of Industries, was received m February, 1913, from the Exhibition representative m Wellington. The application was signed by J. M; Schapiro and was accompanied by £70, the space was allotted and Schapiro eventually .came to Auckland from Wellington, bringing with him a collection of paintings. The Commissioners then learned that Schapiro was holding an art union and a printed notice — a permit — was sent to him. He refused to sign it, stating that he had understood from Mr. Allen, the Exhibition representative m Wellington, that no commission was to be paid on art unions. The art union was extensively advertised and tickets sold m the stall; but Schapiro absolutely refused to allow the collector each week to see his books and WOULD PAY NO COMMISSION. Several times he complained of hard luck and lack of business through the strike and other causes. Lawyer Brown: You say you posted Schapiro a prospectus. Did you do that personally? — I cannot say» but, m my letter to him. I used the words "I am forwarding you a prospectus." At the time Schapiro signed the application, no other art union was contemplated? — No. I don't think so. After Mr. Schapiro refused to pay commission, several more art unions were started? — Yob. It is not usual for more than one art union' to be conducted m an Exhibition? — I have never seen an art union m any other Exhibition, but I believe one was held m connection with the Christchurch Exhibition. The Commissioners conducted an art union themselves, did they not? — Yes! Was that not done to damage Mr. Schapiro? — Not at all. The other art unions were allowed because Schapiro would not pay commission?—No! Do you say that THEY WOULD HAVE BEEN PERMITTED if Schapiro had paid his commission? Who were the othors who conducted art unions? — Winkleman, Attwood, Meull, Rainger and Mrs. Blrcher. Did these people sign an agreement? — No! Did they all pay commission on tho tickets sold?— No! \ Who did not?— Winkleman and Mrs. Bircber. Mr. Kettle, S.M.: What bos that got to do with it? Even if the Commlsalonera decide to make concessions here and there, that has nothing to do with It. Georgo Elliott, President of tho Exhibition, said, "I interviewed Schapiro. Ho is a man of many word* and you will get him. m tho witness box presently; but I don't know if you will understand him. Ho told mo that times were very hard and wild a great deal, while I said very little Witness went on to jwy. that be ug%la

saw Schapiro, who said that he had made an arrangoment with the Exhibition representative m Wellington, Mr. Allen, that no commission was to be paid on the art union and added that, if Mr. Allen did not bear him out m that, he (Schaplro) would pay the commission. A letter to Mr. Allen brought a reply DENYING ANY ARRANGEMENT for non-payment. Schapiro still refused to pay when requested. Oliver Nicholson, honorary solloltor to the Exhibition Commissioners, also deposed that Schapiro one day said In witness's ofOce that ho had an arrangement with H. F. Allen In Wellington and, if that were not so, ho would pay tho ten per cent. Lawyer Brown moved for a nonsuit on several grounds, the chief of which was that tho contract between the plaintiffs and the defondant was baaed upon tho signed application of Schapiro and two letters — odo written by Holmes. No mention of commission on art unions was made In any document. Tho case was adjourned till the following day. On Wednesday lust Lawyer Brown, who had Intlmatod bis intention to call defendant us a. witness, apparently cha- ;cd his mind and did not call any evidence for tho defence. After hearing addresses by the lawyers on both sides. Magistrate Kettle reserved his decision. opinion that he lms outlived his usefulness, because "Truth" now finds th*u the jf<mjlemq.n Is, ottering ULj wr- ,