DEAL IN OIL.

Sun (Christchurch), Volume I, Issue 145, 25 July 1914, Page 10

DEAL IN OIL.

A QUESTION OF ACCOUNTS. THE PLAINTIFF IN THE BOX. The hearing was continued in the Supreme Court to-day before his Honour Mr Justice Sim of the case of Arthur Ernest Otway, engineer, of Christchurch, v. Percy Arthur Herman, agent,' of Christchurch. The ease arose out of certain business transactions the parties had had in respect to the Consolidated Oilfields of Taranaki, Ltd. The plaintiff asked that accounts be taken between the parties. Mr. McGregor, with him Mr A. F. Wright, appeared for the plaintiff, and Mr M. Myers, with him Mr A. H. Anthony, for the defendant. „ TO-DAY'S PROCEEDINGS.

When the court resumed this morning the plaintiff continued his evidence. He spoke to Mr Oscar Asche about purchasing some shares, but was not directly instrumental in . selling shares to Asche-- Herman told him afterwards that he had completed the.deal with Asche, and had had to pay Westmicott £l2O commission in connection with the sale. Westmicott, witness ..understood, was advance agent for Mr Asche's company. Witness saw no voucher. He did not think any oil shares for that property could now be purchased at par. He : denied having had any conversation about shares in the Christchurch Oil Company with Free. > Herman told witness that Free was a very clever company lawyer, and carried, great weight among the business and financial people of Christchurch, and he proposed that Free should .be given 1500 Consolidated shares. Witness objected,, and it was finally arranged that Free should have 1000 fullv paid up shares and should do the legal" work of the company without any charge. Free received 1000 shares and £SOO for a payment of £IOO, thus making a profit of £I4OO. He received his costs as well.

Cross/examined by Mr Myers, witness said he recognised that a number of important matters in his evidence were diametrically opposed to the ...evidence of Mr Free. He would swear that he did not make any arrangement, with Mr Free in regard to the .1500 shares. It was a matter between witness and Herman. Free's statement that he received instructions from both Herman and witness in regard to the preparation of the partnership agreement of July 11 was not correct. Free's statement that he suggested sending the draft of the account down to Ritchie for him to look through for witness was untrue. He would not swear that positively. Herman approached witness in the first instance about the selling of the shares. He might have been present on February 17 when instructions were given to Free to prepare the release. It was a fact that Mr Goodman had worked up witness's case for him. Mr Myers: What have you paid Mr Goodman? p-a Witness: From memory, £4O or £oo. What share is he going to get in the T)rooeeds of this action if you win 1 ? That is not right, Mr Myers. He is not going to get anything. .. Mr McGregor: The question is. worthy of the source from which it comes, Mr Otway. „ ■■ • Mr Myers: Do you mean that for me ? Mr McGregor: Yes. Mr Myers: Then it is a very improper thing. , Mr McGregor: If you are so instructed it came from a tainted source. / Mr Myers: I know Mr Goodman. (To the witness): Did you know anything of Mr Goodman. Witness: Not till, I had gone to him. When did you know the kind of reputation he had in this city? About six months afterwards. He briefed your statement? ; With the assistance of Mr Wright. Did not Mr Goodman take it first? No. He took down my statement and worked it into shape. I suppose Mr Goodman told you what it was necessary to prove in order to succeed in this case?

He has since. : Did you ever tell anyone that with the assistance of your friend Mr Goodman you yere going, to get even with HermanNever. Did you ever say that to Gill? No. You are certain of that! Yes.

Witness stated that he had been secretary for many companies, had been in business as a commission agent and hotel and sharebrokev, and had ' been concerned with the flotation of several syndicates. Mr Myers: Then you have had a large and varied business experience?

•.Witness: Yea. " Do you say still that you are not a man of business? In those businesses I had nothing to do with the work in the office. He had not frequently seen documents in Herman's office relating to the business. It would be a fabrication if Miss Harper, Herman's typiste, said witness had repeatedly examined documents and vouchers." Miss Harper had not given him statements of money received and paid away. Witness said he got £2O from Herman on December 1. If Miss Harper swore that witness had been given a copy of the account, and that he took it away with him, he would say it was untrue. The Friedlander transaction was not fully disclosed to him. • He was kept in the dark about everything. He denied that he asked Herman to get the diamond rings for him. It was at the races, on August 13, that he first discussed with Mr Latter the matter of Latter taking 500 shares. The conversation did not take place at the Federal Club before they went to the races. lie did no*: suggest to Mr Latter that he should take on the sale of the shares on a 10 per cent, basis. Mr Myers: My suggestion is that you took Mr Latter round to Mr Herman, and told him that you had an arrangement with Mr Latter that he should receive 10 per cent, from business resulting from his introductions? Witness: I have no recollection whether it originated from me or Mr Herman, but that it was so arranged I am sure. The witness went on to say that in January, 1913/ he bought a farm in

Hamilton. In February, on the 17th or 18th, ho got £225 from Herman, and later Herman made an. arrangement to advance him £B6O. (Proceeding.")"