"NOW THEN," LTD.

Otago Daily Times, Issue 23930, 4 October 1939, Page 5

"NOW THEN," LTD.

SUED FOR COMMISSION ORGANISER'S CLAIM FAILS DETAILS OF LOTTERY SCHEME (Special to Daily Times) WELLINGTON Oct. 3. A claim for commission amounting to £27 10s from " Now Then," Ltd,, of Wellington, brought by B. H. de Rose, formerly of Wellington and now of Napier, failed after the hearing in the Magistrate's Court to-day before Mr J H. Luxford, S.M. The magistrate said that it was a question of word againsi word. . -• u, "We can say that it was a highly speculative concern or scheme."' the magistrate said after hearing'the evidence, "and that it was necessary to obtain public subscriptions in quite an unorthodox way." De Rose, who was represented by Mr W. P. Pringle, said in his, statement of claim that he was engaged by the defendant company as national field organiser to obtain for the company subscriptions to a fund to be used for canvassing New Zealand and promoting a referendum for the purpose of ascertaining from the electors of New Zealand their reactions to a scheme for. national lotteries and to present to Parliament a petition to amend the existing gaming laws and allow the defendant company to conduct lotteries in New Zealand. In addition to salary and expenses, it was alleged that the defendant company had agreed to pay the plaintiff an over ; riding commission oh all subscriptions obtained by or through the instrumentality of the plaintiff, payable at the rate of £1 for every 400 of such with a bonus in addition to commission for obtaining 100,000 subscriptions in five months. The plaintiff alleged that he had obtained 11,000 subscriptions during that period and on this he based his claim. Mr G. I. Joseph, for the company applying for a nonsuit, said that in a claim such as that before the court the entire onus of proof was on the plaintiff, and he submitted that the plaintiff had not discharged that onus. The court, however, held that a prima facie case had been made out by the plaintiff Director's Evidence Sydney Ernest Brown, who stated that he was chairman of .directors of the company, said it had been decided to 'form a partnership of three to canvass the country for advertising for a publication to further the scheme, and it was later decided to . appoint de Rose as field organiser. An arrangement to pay a salary of £8 a week and travelling expenses was made by witness before de Rose was introduced to the directors. De Rose-stated to the directors at a meeting that he would write up 100,000 subscriptions in five months, said witness. The directors offered him a bonus of £250 for every 100,000 subscriptions he could get in five months, and they said that if he should fall short of that mark they would "be reasonable." '» To Mr Joseph, witness said he could not remember the term "pro rata" being used. He thought that 11.000 subscriptions in five months was a very disappointing result. Early in April il looked as if "they might get the 100,000. Two labour union secretaries on the West Coast had given him a deposit of £4O on an option to buy the original £2000: of shares in the company at £IOO per £1 share, said witness to Mr Pringle. No member of the Government or the Labour Party was connected with the proposed s sale, continued witness, and he.had never mentioned " a gentleman who rang up every Friday morning to ask for information on behalf of the Prime Minister." - ■'.-■■■■: A Denial Given Nobody was holding shares on behalf of Mr Schramm or Mr Lee, witness said to Mr Pringle. Witness denied that Messrs Walsh, Wilson or Roberts had intervened in the proposed saL in any way The magistrate: 1 thought that probably the Director of Mental Hospitals might have intervened. The whole-case was: one of. hignpressure work in getting in money, the magistrate said, and one could see it was ridiculous to suggest that a bonus of £250 would be offered unless it were a reward for obtaining subscriptions from a large number of gullible people in a very short spate of time He held that the contract was that the plaintiff was to receive salary and travelling expenses and a bonus.of £250 if he could succeed in getting 100.000 shares. The plaintiff was nonsuited and ordered to pay the costs of the action.