Muriel Stan Sets in Bankrupty

NZ Truth, Issue 1274, 1 May 1930, Page 6

Muriel Stan Sets m Bankrupty

WHEN 12/10 WAS HER TAXI FARE ♦ Once Popular Stage Favorite Meets Her Creditors On The Crest of Misfortune BROKEN BY CIRCUMSTANCE, "I'LL PAY" (From "N.Z. Truth's"- Special Sydney .Representative). New Zealanders remember the time they first saw Muriel Starr. Almost seventeen years ago. Perhaps they were those quiet and silently strong people, but there they were seeing Madame X's , sorry story unfold itself, hearing the Starr voice spend itself m torment and tragedy. Almost every minute was split with the audible sobs of the woman sitting m the next stall.

THE audience didn't care whether it was a good play or a bad play. All they felt was that Muriel Starr was making them feel something- that hurt, something that dimmed their eyes. Then itiwas all over, and there she was, taking ; curtain after curtain, smiling faintly, and the audience found itself stamping, waving arms, anything to bring her back. What did they care about the people near them, they were doing exactly the same, stamping, waving their arms. And that was 17 years ago, that was when Muriel Starr caused more stir than vice-royalty, when on a Melbourne racecourse she was mobbed by frantic, ecstatic women, hundreds of them, rushing to clutch her frock, her hand— "l've TOUCHED Muriel Starr!" ■ — tugging at her dress, cherishing the piece 'that came away— "Muriel Starr WORE it." INDIFFERENT PUBLIC That was 17 years ago, when people bragged of seeing "Within the Law," when queues outside the theatre reached half-way down the street. That was 17 years ago, when bankruptcy happened to other, people, and when 12/10 was merely a taxi fare to the woman who played Mary Turner, when her biggest asset was the goodwill of a theatregoing public, a public now grown older and colder, apathetic, indifferent to the sight of a former idol • now worth 12/10 and a few frocks. Alas! From affluence and the cheers of the multitude to the bankruptcy court! What pathos there is m the fall of Muriel Starr. Five years ago she played to packed houses — to-day she has 12/10 m cash and stage dresses worth £30! | Blame the chartged .tastes of the crowds for the talkies, lay the trouble at the door of Old Man Depression, name whatever cause you like, but MWiel Starr had never figured m so curious and pathetic a drama as that m which she played lead m the Bankruptcy Court the other (lay. She has no doubts about what sent her there. "I attribute my bankruptcy," she said, "to not having received the support of the : public m the various ventures I have undertaken, to the advent of the talkies, and to the general depression all over the country." But she couldn't help smiling, a wistful smile though -it was, and into that place of last hopes she brought a feeling of cheerfulness that seemed to drive away some of the gloom. ' SALARY £40 A WEEK Miss Starr's real name is Muriel Johnston. She is the wife of William Hartwell Johnston, to whom she was married m 1918, and who is one of the big men m .the Wrigley chewing gum ' concern. As a matter of fact, Johnston came out here to organise the Australian end of the chewing gum industry, and after he had got everyone chewing, wen,t back to the States.' Miss Starr, who is a native of Montreal, said that she rejoined him m 1920, and lived privately with him for three years m Chicago. Miss Starr's advent to Australia was m 1913, when J.vC. Williamson, Ltd., brought her out. Her salary was £40 a week for six months, but two years and nine' months was the length of her stay m Australia, and she did not return to America until that time had elapsed. But she was not long away. Her next visit was in:i9l7, when "the Firm" brought her out to play m the "Bird of Paradise," at a salary of £70 a week. From Australia she went to America, where she lived for three years, and then went on "to England, only to return to the Antipodes to work for J.C.W. under a contract of £80 a week. That season, a most successful one, saw her play m "The Garden of Allah" and "East of Suez." NEW ZEALAND TOUR The year 1926 saw the .turning point m her career. With capital that amounted to £600, she went out with the company of her own. From JVC. Williamson she hired theatres m different States, paying anything from five to ten per cent, of the gross takings. In Tasmania the people took her, to their hearts, and the money rolled m; but over m New Zealand bad luck stalked every move she made, and this presaged her crash. Things did not go too well over there, and the slide down the toboggan track to the financial mire was hastened by bad luck m New Zealand and brought nigh to completion at the Princess Theatre, Melbourne, where the musicians went on strike because The Firm had put m mechanical music. \ . She was near the end of her tether, but still fought on.

She refused to give m, and everyone remembers that brave effort -of hers at the end of last year when she began to fight bad luck over the footlights at the Palace Theatre. Miss Starr was to pay J. C. Williamson 20 per cent, of the gross takings, with a minimum rent of £175 a weeK. She stayed there for for over a month,, but there were no crushes at the box office, the crowds simply stayed away, and she ended up owing £2500. In addition, she owed her actors arid actresses their salaries — "The only salaries I have ever owed," she said pathetically. It' was the writing on the wall, and last February she voluntarily sequestrated her estate with unsecured liabilities totalling £3427. To J. C. Wil-. liamson she owes £2580 and to -the Income Tax Department £150. The only assets she has are. 12/10 m cash and that £30 worth of stage clothes. The examination of Miss Starr, conducted by Official Receiver C. F. W.

FROM Wise's Gase there emerges the unpleasant fact that the business crook has little respect for the law and a. great deal of confidence m his own slick 'ingenuity and wit to make use of company laws that seem not to be anybody's business to enforce. Recently m these columns was published an account of this swindler's activities under the guise of "The N.Z. Trust Executors' Agency Mortgage Finance and General Investment Association." ■ A high-sounding and attractive title, and there was nobody to prevent him making use of it or of the company registration laws to add lustre to his enterprise. For the next six months, at any rate, the" public will be' safe from Thomas Wise. A man of no substance and possessing a criminal record, he was m "business" purely for fraudulent reasons and' never attempted to carry out one of the promises he made, and on which he received money. Clearly, the general public is menaced by a state of law which allows such things to exist without adequate check. » The*position is not improved by the fact that it would be possible for any swindler like Wise to form himself into a private company and thus obtain the endorsement of inclusion, in the annual ■register of companies, public and private, issued by the Companies Office. LAX COMPANY LAW The law governing private companies m New Zealand is all too lax. In present circumstances all that is necessary to obtain registration is to find some unscrupulous or negligent person to make a declaration that the provisions of the Companies Act have been complied with, that the capital has been subscribed"; and to draw up a memorandum setting out the capital, shareholders and objects of the company, and to proceed down to the Companies Office with the necessary fee m hand. . While registration as a private company, gives material advantages m trading and excludes the firm from the many and far-reaching obligations which strew the path of a public-com-pany during its early, existence, it also confers a degree of privacy which would assist fraud m marked degree. For instancle, tire private company does not have to publish an annual balance-sheet, and while the capital set out m its memorandum is supposed to be represented by allotted shares, though uncalled capital, may be included, there is no system of check by which the operations of the company may be supervised. By statute, the private company is supposed to carry out a number of duties, failure^to perfprm>them being visited with heavy penalties. It should notify all changes of membership, it should register special resolutions, advise any change of its registered office, keep- a register of its members, and it should not carry on business with more than 25 members

Lloyd, was declared concluded. Miss Starr was represented m court by Mr. F. E. Maddocks Cohen. So much for the emotional side of her financial crash. She deplores her position m as far as that there are people to whom she owes moneys. "But I shall pay them back I know," for Schubert's answer to her cable asking if anything was offering was: "Come on," and Schuberts is a theatrical name to conjure with m America. * Just as soon as her clearance papers are available she goes back to America and hopes to make a talkie short on the way. Meantime she refuses to regard herself as -an object of pity, her sense of humor remains unstinted, and like Henley's "captain of his soul," her head remains unbowed. For the first time m her life she finds herself with nothing to do and very little to occupy her, therefore "I go to the talkies and love 'em." There's magnanimity for you!

or fail to have its name visible ajt its place of business. Actually, it is common kno'vyledge, there is failure on the part of a majority of the companies to carry out these obligations to. the public. v Some of the duties mentioned are' often neglected, principally the obligation to notify change of membership. Theoretically, it is possible for any member of the public to go to the Companies Office, pay a shilling and find out who the members of a private company are. Actually, by reason of this neglect, it is not always possible to discover current shareholders. PROPOSED REMEDY . It is essential m the interests of good business, especially m these days of credit, that all possible safeguards should be taken. The remedy, proposed by a lead- . ing barrister, is that there should be created an inspector of private . companies who wou|d be charged with the task of seeing that these concerns carry out their duties. The necessity for this is seen m the 1 fact that 3439 of the 5069 companies m New Zealand m 1926 were private companies and their nominal capital was £36,000,000 out of a total of £125,500,000. Many of- these companies are neglecting the obligations imposed on them by law. And for most of the offences there are penalties ranging from £2 to £5 per day. At present, there is sitting a joint committee of lawyers and accountants who will soon bring down suggestions for the amendment of the present Companies Act which has stood since 1908. One of their recommendations should be some sort of inspection of the private companies. Such an inspector would be a good investment from the point of view of the- State, for he would easily provide his salary with revenue from fines his investigations bring about. From a public viewpoint such an appointment would be well worth while because of the additional safeguards providing against fraudulent Individuals of "the Wise type.