STATION 4ZP

Southland Times, Issue 22011, 10 May 1933, Page 13

STATION 4ZP

OWNERSHIP CLAIM APPEAL TO SUPREME COURT JUDGMENT RESERVED Conflicting claims to the possession of two radio transmitters comprising Station 4ZP were in issue yesterday when before his Honour Mr Justice Kennedy an appeal by way of a rehearing was brought in the Supreme Court from the decision of the Magistrate (Mr E. C. Levvey) in awarding possession of such transmitters to the liquidator of the Parsons Engineering Company. In the Lower Court the liquidator had proceeded against Richard Thomas Parsons claiming possession of the transmitters or £2OO, and the Magistrate had found for the plaintiff. The main grounds of appeal were that the Magistrate’s decision was against the weight of evidence, that no reasons were given for the judgment and that judgment would not be served by argument on point of law only. Mr G. F. Inder appeared for the appellant, Richard Thomas Parsons, while Mr W. A. Stout represented the liquidator. Mr Stout, in reviewing the facts, said that evidence was given in the Court below by the plaintiff’s witnesses that the new transmitter had been built by the appellant, who was radio manager and a director of the company, and therefore compelled to give his whole time to the service of the company. The company’s premises were used for the work and therefore the transmitter - must be the property of the company. There had been such an extraordinary conflict of the evidence tendered by the defence, proceeded Counsel, that the Magistrate evidently decided he could not accept Evidence for Respondent. Frank Arthur Webb, a public accountant, gave evidence that he was appointed to take over the company’s books with a view to putting them in order. There was no reference in those books to the new transmitter, though the old one was put down at £4OO. In reply to a question by his Honour at this stage, Mr Inder said that the appellant was prepared to hand over the old transmitter, which he now admitted was the property of the company. Continuing his evidence, Mr Webb said he knew the appellant claimed the new transmitter as his own and he brought the matter before the meeting of creditors who contended that it was an asset of the company. Witness had never been satisfied by the appellant on the question of his ownership. Parsons on one occasion stated that he owed the company £4O for materials which had gone into the transmitter. Frank Weymouth, a bank clerk, said he had become acquainted with the appellant through various dealings and had been approached by both the appellant and his father to join the company. He waited until a balance-sheet was issued and was offered a salary equivalent to what he was getting at the bank. He was to put in £5OO and actually contributed £4OO. The bal-ance-sheet showed that the company was in a good position and he was led to believe that the transmitter, which was in the course of construction, belonged to the company and was worth between £2OOO and £3OOO. He resigned from the bank and paid over the £4OO in two sums each of £6O and £340. He had reason to believe that it was his money which enabled the transmitter to be completed. When he called at the company’s premises in Spey street on numerous occasions in the day time he saw work being done on the transmitter both by the appellant and Brooks (a mechanic in the company’s employ). The mechanic seemed to be doing most of the work. About a week before his resignation was to take effect, he found that the balancesheet did not correctly set out the company’s position and, being granted permission to withdraw his resignation, saw no more of the company. To Mr Inder: He was to be allotted 500 shares in the company. Alexander Peterson, secretary of the company, said that the appellant and the mechanic were often working on the new transmitter at Spey street with a view to completing it between 8.30 a.m. and 5 p.m. Both workers were full-time employees of the company. Under cross-examination by Mr Inder, witness said that although the witness Weymouth had discussed with him the advisability of putting money into the business he (Peterson) had advised Weymouth it was a matter for himself to decide.

Arthur Jordan, a radio mechanic, identified the transmitter at present in use at Station 4ZP as one he saw in the course of construction on the company’s Spey street premises. Witness estimated its value at £2OO (including labour). When witness visited Layard street on the occasion of the hearing in the Lowei - Court he had an argument with the appellant, who drew his attention to certain alterations which he claimed he had made. Witness agreed, but said they were really not essential.

To Mi - Inder: It was the circuit that constituted the difference between one transmitter and the other.

Mr Stout having concluded his case, Mr Inder argued that there was no evidence before the Court to identify the transmitter claimed or to show that money was expended on its construction by the company and therefore the respondent’s argument must fail. The Appellant's Version.

Richard Thomas Parsons, the appellant, who was the first witness called by Mr Inder, said that about two and a-half years ago arrangements were completed with friends in Dunedin that they should purchase the old 4ZP station. Appellant’s idea was to build a new up-to-date station. Messrs McEwan, Bates, Brooks and one or two other radio enthusiasts, together with witness, decided to build a bigger transmitter. Many parts were assembled at Layard street and, at different times when in Dunedin, witness purchased parts there as did Bates, cash being paid for them. McEwan bought transformers from the Southland Power Board on witness s behalf and was reimbursed in due course. At the time the old transmitter was sold, the component parts of the new instrument were in the course of construction. His father (the managing director of the company) gave witness permission to build the new transmitter on the Spey street premises. The instrument was only in the experimental stage when removed to Layard street. It had never been completed and no permission to use it was forthcoming from the Post and Telegraph Department as it was not then in proper order. That permission was granted later at Layard street. His father was aware of the contemplated removal of the transmitter from Spey to Layard streets. The matter was not kept secret. Witness was present at the meeting of creditors, but he had no knowledge of a statement made there that the old transmitter had been superseded by a new one. A discussion did take place regarding the ownership of the new transmitter and witness stated positively that the instrument belonged to him. He had had only one conversation with Weymouth regarding the latter’s coming into the company and such talk was in the presence of Peterson. They both looked

at the balance-sheet, but there was no discussion about the value of the transmitter. When later at Layard street, Weymouth broached the matter again witness said he did not care whether Weymouth came into the company or not. The new transmitter was removed to Layard street about the end of January 1932. Parsons senior was informed of the intention to shift the transmitter. Witness produced receipts for transmitter parts purchased. The reconstruction material used at Layard street was practically all brand new. The company owed witness back wages and he arranged with his father to deduct from such claim certain parts he (witness) purchased. At the most four valves and three condensers were the only parts of the transmitter in Spey street used when it was assembled at Layard street. Witness Cross-examined. To Mr Stout: For a fortnight Bates and witness worked in assembling the new transmitter. It was not correct to say that the Spey street instrument was practically transferred intact to Layard street. He did not think Jordan had seen the transmitter twice in Spey street. If he had, he had no right on the premises. Weymouth and Peterson were mistaken when they said they saw witness and Brooks working together on the transmitter—they were working on receiving sets. Brooks had admitted in the Lower Court that he worked on the transmitter in the company’s time, but that was without the authority of either witness or his father. Mr Stout: But you were working there too. Witness: No.

Then Weymouth and Peterson are not telling the truth?—They admitted that they knew nothing about transmitters. You are then in the unfortunate position of contradicting the evidence of these two gentlemen and of Mr Webb. Why should these three people come into this Court and tell all these lies?— Weymouth said in Court that I had induced him to come into the company. He used to meet me on the street and jeer at me and say that he knew more about the business of the company than I did. He was annoyed over the £4OO and said he didn’t care as long as I lost the new transmitter. He said I did not have a hope of keeping it. Allegation Denied.

Did you induce him to come into the company ?—No, I did not. You deny it?—Certainly. Weymouth made a statement in the Lower Court before Mr Levvey that I was the one who made him come into the company and he even said this morning that it was C. E. Parsons and not R. T. Parsons; he contradicted his own evidence. So you deny influencing Weymouth to enter the company?—Of course I deny it. I deny it in this Court. Was Weymouth in communication with your father?—No. What then induced Weymouth to give up his billet and put £4OO into the business? —If you want to know Weymouth was warned by Mr Webb, Mr Brodrick and Mr Hall-Jones not to go into it. He knew more about the Parsons Engineering Company than I did myself. David McGregor McEwan, a radio engineer, said he had operated the old transmitter. Witness assisted the appellant in certain respects to build the new transmitter in Spey street on many nights. Richard Parsons, an engineer, father of the appellant, said he had been managing director of the company. He gave appellant permission to erect, a transmitter at the Spey street premises on condition that it did not interfere with witness’s general duties for the firm. He saw Brooks working on the transmitter on some evenings, but never in the day time. If he worked on it during the day it was contrary to witness’s instructions. Witness had nothing to do with any payments made for parts for the new transmitter. Weymouth prepared the agreement in respect to his taking the shares and submitted it to Peterson who, in turn, handed it to witness and his son for signature. To Mr Stout: He was present at the meeting of creditors, but did not remember Mr Webb reading out a statement that the old transmitter had been superseded by the new one. Announcer’s Evidence. Cecil Edward Parsons, the 4ZP announcer, gave evidence that it was while Weymouth was giving Scout talks over the air from the station that he began to make inquiries from witness regarding the engineering business. Weymouth asked witness to ascertain if there was any chance of his linking up with the company. Witness communicated Weymouth’s desire to the other members of the firm. Leonard Charles Bates, a radio operator at Nelson, sail he assisted to assemble the new transmitter at Layard street. When he first saw it there it was in a disgraceful state and he wondered how it ever went. Witness, at the request of the appellant, purchased certain parts at Dunedin. Parsons and he reconstructed the whole transmitter from beginning to end. The most expensive portions of the new transmitter at present were new parts. To Mr Stout: He could not say what the transmitter was like when it was first shifted up to Layard street. After hearing legal argument by counsel, his Honour reserved his judgment.