FURNISHING OF CHATEAU

Taranaki Daily News, 11 September 1934, Page 8

FURNISHING OF CHATEAU

FIRM’S CLAIM FOR £lO,OOO PETITION' BEFORE THE HOUSE. FAVOURABLE CONSIDERATION. Wellington, Sept. 6. In view of the fact that the Government was now the owner of the goods concerned, the Public Petitions Committee in the House this afternoon recommended to the Government for favourable consideration, the petition of A. J. White, Ltd., asking for the payment of the sum of £10,353, the balance of the cost due ’for furnishing the Chateau Tongariro. In the discussion that followed the business methods of the Public Trustee came in for criticism. The petitioner stated that it had entered into a verbal contract with Mr. R. L. Wigley to supply the whole of the furnishings for the Chateau in 1929, and it was assumed from the nature of the company and its shareholders and the fact that Government support was assured that upon completion of the furnishing the firm would be paid in cash. At the end of 1929 the firm was informed by Mr. Wigley that he hoped to obtain an advance from the Government from which it was possible to pay £5OOO, and he asked that the completed account should be forwarded. In April, 1930, the completed account v'ps forwarded to Mr. Wigley, showing the amount due to be £15,865. In May, the Tongariro Park Tourist Co.,’ Ltd., gave petitioner an order drawn on the Tongariro National Park Board for £5OOO, to be paid out of the sum of £20,000 agreed to be lent to the company on mortgage by the board. At no time during the negotiations was the petitioner aware that the Park Board proposed to accept a bill of sale from the Tourist Company pledging the chattels supplied to the chateau by the petitioner, yet, it was claimed, during the whole of the period from January, 1930, to May,’ 1930, when the petitioner was asking for payment of the account the Tourist Company was arranging such bill of sale.

The £5OOO was eventually paid and accepted by the petitioner without prejudice and without any admission of the validity of any instrument given by the Mount Cook Tourist Co. or the Tongariro Park Tourist Co. over the furnishings supplied by the petitioner. In January, 1931, the Tongariro Park Tourist Co. went into liquidation and the securities held by the Public Trustee and the National Park Board were taken oyer by' the Government.

The petitioner claimed that the departmental officers concerned knew that the petitioner was the unpaid vendor of the furnishings and withheld from petitioner the information that they proposed to accept a bill of sale over the furnishings from the Tongariro Park Tourist Co. because they realised that petitioner would take. immediate action to enforce payment of the amount due and so prevent an act so prejudicial financially to himself. The petition also charged the officers concerned and the Tongariro Park Tourist Company with a breach of faith. Subsequently an endeavour was made to prove that the Mount Cook Tourist Company had made itself liable for the payment of the contract for furnishing the chateau, but this was not successful. “MISCARRIAGE OF JUSTICE.” Mr. H. T. Armstrong (Labour, Christchurch East) described this as one of the grayest miscarriages of justice he had known. In giving the history of the claim he said that the contract was a loose one, and that the proposal was submitted in such a way that it was impossible to give an accurate estimate of the cost, as the architect of the chateau reserved the right to alter his plans as he went along. The price eventually submitted—£ls,B6s—was agreed to. In negotiating for the mortgage of £20,000 the Chateau Company intended to raise a loan on the furnitu. r supplied by the petitioner and out of that to make the petitioner a progress payment of £5OOO. The petitioner was never consulted and if it had been it would have refused its consent. The Government was now the owner of furnishings that did not belong to the tourist company at all. The loan of £20,000 was obtained from the Public Trustee who, said Mr. Armstrong, should have ascertained whether he was the actual owner of the property. But it appeared that this point had never been investigated either by the Public Trustee or the National Park Board, which was also concerned in the negotiations.

“If a local body did that sort of thing,” claimed Mr. Armstrong, “its balancesheet would never pass the Audit Department, and the councillors would be called upon to make good the loss. If the Public Trustee did know the goods were not paid for I wonder where the business morality comes in. “I have not heard, and I venture to say that no other member of this House has heard, of a case where a sum of money like this had been lent without inquiries being made.” The Rt. Hon. J. G. Coates: The question is, can we legally pay out? I have already expressed my view of the situation and I am not contesting the point that has been raised. Mr. Sullivan: Cannot the matter be rectified by legislation?