AFFAIRS OF MR OSCAR ASCHE

Otago Daily Times, Issue 19946, 13 November 1926, Page 27

AFFAIRS OF MR OSCAR ASCHE

PROFITS FROM “CHU CHIN CHOW.”

A LOST FORTUNE. “THERE IS NOTHING LEFT.” (From Our Ows Correspondent.) LONDON, September 25. This week the public examination look place in tho Court of Bankruptcy of Mr John Stanger Oscar Asche, the well-known actor-manugcr-producer. Tho receiving order was made on a creditor's petition in the County Court of Gloucester last May, hut tho proceedings were transferred to tho High Court a month later. ~ iho debtor’s liabilities, according to his statement of affairs, amount to £44,311, of which £27,018 are treated as expected to rank for dividend. Tho assets uro valued at £13.915, and consist chiefly of two claims, one for £SOOO against a company in respect of royalties, and the other for £IO,OOO against an Australian company in respect of share in costumes, scenery, etc., of various productions. It appears that all the assets arc absolved in part payment of a claim for taxes returned at £15,013. In an account respecting the deficiency tho tier tor states that his income since May, 1923, has been £12,600, and he has received royalties totalling £ISOO. On the credit side of the account other items amount to £6500. On the other side of the account the debtor states that ho had a deficiency in assets of £15,360 in May, 1923, and that his household and personal expenses, including Australian and New Zealand income tax, have since amounted to £16,663, while professional expenses have totalled £7160. Other items comprise certain expenses connected with “Cbu Chin Chow,” £3OOO interest and costs on borrojved money £I6OO, and loss on production of “The Good Old Days,” £ISOO. OVER £IOO,OOO IN ROYALTIES. The debtor stated that ho had been in the theatrical profession for over 32 years. During a number of years he had been engaged as an actor-manager and producer. It was in 1911 that he produced “Kismet at the Garrick Theatre, and tho piece was continued until January. 1912. It was in that month he wont to Australia. liiero he produced a number of the plays of Shakespeare, continuing to March, 1914. “Kismet” was then reproduced in London, and in August, 1916, “Chu Chin Chow” appeared at His Majesty’s Theatre, lhat play was written by himself, and was financed by a private company. He received a salary of £BO a week and a share of royalties, which daring the five years run of the play brought him m over £IOO,OOO. A musical play was produced at His Majesty’s in October, 1921, he being the author. It was called ‘‘Cairo,” and the salary he received amounted to £l5O. He also had a share in the royalties, which brought in a considerable sum of money. The play was a financial success, but it was withdrawn in the following May. AUSTRALIAN TOUR. He left England for a tour in Australia and New Zealand in July, 1922, under an agreement with an Australian company of theatrical managers. By tho agreement ho was to receive a weekly minimum of £2OO, on account of 50 per cent, of the profits. Altogether he produced eight plays. Ho had no financial statements rendered to him. Prior to leaving Australia in July, 1924, he instructed a firm of solicitors in Melbourne to prosecute his claim for accounts. He received a weekly account of receipts and profits. He, however, contended that the latter included matters with which he was not concerned. He was making an effort to obtain, in accordance with his agreement, his one-half share of the scenery, costumes, and properties of the eight productions. The proceedings in Melbourne had been referred to the arbitfators in this country named in the agreement. He had not been able to obtain possession of his documents in Australia, but he would be willing to settle his claim for £IO,OOO. That value he had attached to it in his statement of affairs. His share of the royalties from “Kismet,” the debtor estimated, totalled £30,000. By way of royalties between the years 1916 and 1924 he had received something like £140,000, of which £120,000 was derived from “Chu Chin Chow.’’ CLAIM FOR INCOME TAX. With regard to the question of income tax, the debtor stated that whenever he received a demand note he paid it. The Inland Revenue authorities, in a sudden sort of way, declared that ho owed a good deal more money. He had enough money in 1919 and 1920 to have paid such a claim, and he now contended that he had paid actually double income tax while on tour in Australia. It was pointed out by the Official Receiver, Mr Vyvyan, that the matter was of importance to the debtor’s creditors, as a large claim was now being made in respect of income tax, which greatly affected his assets. The debtor said that in past years ho had always paid tax on demand. During June of last year he received a fee of £4OO for producing a musical comedy for another person, and during the following October at the Gaiety Theatre he produced “The Good Old Days.” This was a musical comedy, he being the author. A private company financed the production, and he put £ISOO into it. He received £IOO a week during tho short run of five weeks. The play was not a success. During April last he produced for another person a modern comedy, putting £4OO into the venture. Until June he received £75 a week. HEAVY GREYHOUND-BREEDING LOSSES. Debtor further stated that between 1914 and 1922 he was engaged in breeding, training, and running greyhounds. For that purpose he rented in 1925 Sugley Farm, Nailsworth. He bought that property daring 1919 and 1920. By that enterprise he lost something like £SOOO a year. Before going to Australia he disposed of all his dogs. Amounts to the extent of £3377 were advanced ’on mortgage of the farm, but this liability was not expected to rank against the estate. The debtor had, by an agreement dated July 20, 1922, arranged to sell the farm to a friend, together with the adjoining buildings and furniture for £ISOO. This was subject to a mortgage to the extent of £2500. There was an option to repurchase for £2OOO within five years. The actual conveyance in favour of the purchase was not executed until a short time before the date of tho receiving order. The option had not yet expired He had always lived within his income until the last year. He had attended race meetings, and was a member of two race clubs. During the past three years he had been on tho right side. As to the causes of his failure, debtor stated that he would have been under no obligation to borrow money had he received his share of tho profits which he considered he was enetitlod to on his Australian tour. A play was produced in London which proved a failure. His name was coupled with tho production, although he was only a paid servant, and ho reaped no good by this. Replying to Mr Gilbert Beyfus, who appeared for Mr F. S. Salaman. the trustee, the debtor said ho had given a good 1 deal of money away to charity and in other similar ways. All the amounts he had re- i ccivcd had now practically vanished. j Mr Registrar Sfiebei concluded the ox- 1 amination.