GEORGE HENRY EDWARDS GOES TO LAW

NZ Truth, Issue 1127, 7 July 1927, Page 5

GEORGE HENRY EDWARDS GOES TO LAW

•QUPERVISION should not stop at ,3 that, for there are more things {' ,• happening to-day m cement and {wood than are ever dreamt of m the (Philosophy of the general public.' I 'Fo»' more than a couple of weeks now the work on the Remuera picture theatre has stagnated, and to-day the casings for concrete buttresses of the far from complete building raise their timbered heads to the" sky above, a position unwelcome to the promoters and distressing to many who pass by each day and ' thoughtfully consider the good money sunk m that scheme. ;. When the promotion of the Remuera Picture Theatre Co. had progressed so far under the kindly offices of Messrs. Brownrigg and Chapman, an architect was selected, and the choice fell upon one' H. S. James; and m course of time a contractor, by name George Henry Edwards submitted a price for the job.

v CORRESPONDENCE

iHis estimate of the price wasf £12,800. He was told that he would be required to take two thousand shares m the company if he took the job. « Edwards said if that was the case his price for the contract would be £14,800! ' v Following on this Edwards received a letter from the Theatre Company dated November 2, of which the ' following is a copy: The Remuera Theatre Co., Ltd. 23 Short's Buildings, Queen Street,' Auckland, Nov. 2, 1926. ■ Mr; George H. Edwards, '.Contractor, Allendale Road, ' Mt. Albert. Dear Sir. — Re Remuera, Theatre Contract. . In reference to our conversation regarding the above, we have ,to state- that m consideration of your applying for 2000 shares m the above company and giving your cheque for £400 (four hundred ''Pounds') as application money on ,'such shares, ,we personally agree 1 ' as Promoters and Organising Brokers to secure the contract for you for the erection of the theatre. 1 «It is understood that the -balance, of payments due and "payable m respect of the 2000 shares applied / for by you shall be credited to you as part payment of the contract price. :• The contract price is to be not Jess than £14,800 (fourteen thousand and eight hundred pounds), "as per plans and specifications to be supplied, by our architect, Mr. H. S. James, 43,681. a We also undertake to satisfy you , that the necessary finance is, ar.'ranged before the f contract between ,ypu and the company is entered ,into, and m the event of such [finance not^ being available three .-months from the date of allot"ment, or any extended term to be 'mutually agreed upon, then the contract shall be null and void, and no

-o '■■■(■■■■ •'" ■ ■■-'" '■- — '— — — — ' . ■■ " ■ ■. ■ . ■ .■■■< Business Methods of Remuera

Theatre Company, Ltd.

CONTRACTOR GETS £400 BACK (From ■.N.Z. Truth's" Special Auckland Representative.) T AST December "N.Z. Truth" reviewed the prospectus of the Eemuera Theatre Co., Lt£. The following paragraphs extracted from that review have at the < present juncture an additional interest. .. ' , Said "Fiat Lux": "The whole proposal seems to.be crude and Unfinished and does not inspire confidence. . . . This prospectus, lends added weight to the suggestion'that the Government should exercise close supervision over the issue of all prospectuses."

O * lacking would make no difference to the price. Quantities and so on he would, be able to gauge from the specifications. "As usual," he added, "the architect did not get them done jn time." Reference was then made to some other job for which Edwards had tendered successfully; it proved to be the •Henderson . Town Hall. Counsel for the defence suggested that witness had' " not made a satisfactory job of It. <> James had also been the architect for this building. The reply was: "The architect was satisfied until -I sent m my account for repairs to a wall which had fallen m; he asked me not to men- • tion it." ' As to his contract alleged to have been made f or^ the' -(Remuera Theatre, he replied: "I liever said I wag satisfled to let the- matter rest if I got mv £400 back." ,

nmiimniutMMiniiiiiniiiiiiiiMiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiHiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii compensation shall be payable, to , or by either party. / \ 1 We presume, of course, that your . proxy will be given to our Mr. '.Brownrigg; who is to be. appointed • managing . director of the company < at the statutory' meeting. -; . ■'.'■ V : . \. : • faithfully,;,' V , ■ ■ I. Browririgg: & Chapman : ; (per A; B. Brownrigg). , : Edwards paid ; m ;_£ 400. hard cash, being, the first payment on 2000 shares, on the understanding that the contract price should; not' be less than £,14j800y but he did : not accept the letter from the company,' as ithere was a; technical objection to his doing ,so. . . , < , ' /Finally, however, the. company refused to go< on with the . contract ; under '.the terms which" had been. , ' agreed, upon, and Edwards duly notified to that effect. „' ->■'; '■'■'. Noel Cole, ;the 'Contractor who ,. lias ceased ■ working /oh the .. building, applied for '4000 shares, for (that, is the number which : stands against his name on - the. company^ share-list : registered at the Registrar of Companies'. Office,, Auckland.. v ./..,-oV''' •' ■/■>: ; '::-/.' ' ■- '''<■>'-■ Edwards: haying . lost ' the contract arid being out of pocket £ 40 0 — his7.payment on the shares— takes the Remuera Theatre; Co;, ". ■ Limited, to the Supreme Court with a claim against them ; for. £'3280 :-f or 'alleged .breach, of contract and loss of prokpectlve profit; It was, a. small and gathering that met' there to thresh; the" 'matter, out. Counsel Fotheririgham: appeared: for the disconsolate plaintiff; and Lawyer - Northcrof t appeared ,■ , for ;the Theatre Co. Messrs, H. S., James, .the architect, Burbuishi. Brownrig'g, and ChapVnan; important members of, the company, went> to swell' the lit tie .coterie. '-. '■.■<'■:'■'? -. ■': v -:' ■..•■''.■•' . ' "■'•.■ i-v- :^' -\' : ;o v 1 " Prom the witness-box .Edwards = en-r lightened, "the Qourt • and ■■[ Mr. ■^Justice Reed as to the somewhat ■.^remarkable? ramifications of the' building :',' world\ of the periodr-at jeast ■ ' so : aa i V the Queen City; is concerned; ; ''. y ■■ : ;: ' The witness explained that when .' :; . he. was informed that" he would be "■•■■■ : i ■■:■:'";'•; .v;:^;: : j:-;:v

IIIIIMIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIUIIIIIIIIUIimiIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIItIIIIIIUIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIMIIIIS expected to take two . thousand ; shares if he obtained the contract he added that £2000 to the esti- •; mated cost of erecting the theatre;as a. proviso against possible .loss if the thing was a failure. .',..> The prompters agreed to : the idea; arid ; everything m. they.garden was, to all appearances,' lovely.' V ; i '; vHis- honor smiled .somewhat grimly when the peculiar' financial :; proposition was "'announced. .. ; -r , Replying to counsel for the defence, his ' " examination having been ; very brief,' Edwards stated that when S he was asked- to take two thousand shares m' the company he told. James that he would, withdraw, his 'tender- To this the -architect said there V would be no difficulty about the "matter; and such ; a<it'i!6ri\r'w.as'7not-'n : ece.s.s^y > ,:ahd-.he'.':'al-.-leged: that it was intimated' to him, that it would be all serene if vhe added the £2000 to the price of the tender. When this was stated ' liisj honor asked witness if he:' thought it was quite m order. ., The reply was that there was- ho wrong intention. ,

I .'■'• ■■-■- ■''■ raising; money: a V

Continuing what was very technical .evidence as to the remarkable ramifications of the scheme, Edwards explained tl*at he believed that the money was to be raised per medium of a mortgage, and if the. shares were' not" subscribed he was to wait^until th'e- funds were available His first interview with Brownrigg took place at the architect's office, and at the second interview James — the architect— Edwards alleged, recommended that the contract b^e- loaded w^th the 2000 ( shares. . But if the building was to cost less than £ 14,000, he — Edwards — was not to be involved, as he put' it, m the 2000 shares./ 'When Ihe received the' letter regarding these terms he took? it to his' lawyer^ Edwards^ent 1 s on to say that the plans' which he saw were quite adequate upon which to base his estimate ' and that any details which might be '

■ ;.■;■,*' 'v\:a:' bit- on r r":-. ..'■ \

His honor questioned witness as to his action m adding £2000 to the contract price, and the reply was: "I didn't think I was charging £2000 more for the building. If was enough to, give me a reasonable profit. I was not beating the shareholders for this amount." . ■ > Again he said: "I wasn't very confident m this company and I charged ' 1 them more because I thought their shares would be valueless." Witness' experience extended over 18 years, he tofd the Court. ' The only i other : witness called was Arthur James Good, a director of Julians, Ltd., who stated that he was asked to give a , price to build the theatre and to take up 2000 shares. "I objected, because if we did so we * would be liable for 'shares m 'hard cash." He knew nothing about the business with Edwards. His firm estimated that the cost of the building would be £13,500. ' , Asked by the judge if the plans and specifications were explicit enough for a basis of a contract, Good replied: "On the plans and specifications it would be possible to enter into a binding contract. Among other remarks on behalf tof his clients, counsel during his address to the bench stated that the whole transaction was speculative ' on the ' part of Edwards, and that the directors had endeavored to keep, faith with Edwards by offering him his £400 back m exchange for' the transfer of the 2000 shares. And alsb that . the company had not been brought to Court for recovery of the £400, but for damages. In conclusion his honor by consent made an order that the company's register should be rectified, (the allotment rescinded, plaintiff's name removed from the register, while an order ' should be made for the refund of the £40,0: As the refund 'had twice been .tendered plaintiff would"not be - allowed c&Btg. ,- -- ' ■ '