Aramoho Meat Freezing Works.

Wanganui Chronicle, Volume XXXXVII, Issue 11734, 12 September 1902, Page 7

Aramoho Meat Freezing Works.

MITCHELL v. N.Z.L. AND M.A. CO.

Per Press Association. . .WELLINGTON, September 11. Uu tiifc ccari resuming this morning, Mr Reid was cross-examined at length. In re-examination by Mr Jellicoe some riew matter came out. Witness stated thai; the day before he signed the deed of transfer Johnson said there was 20s in the £ for everybody if no bogus claims were put in. This statement put Johnson out of witness's confidence, and the shock was such that witness left the room without signing. Between October, 1901, when wit ness saw the defendant company's manager, and January, when witness's option of purollase of his securities was executed by the company, witness was never told of any arrangement between Nelsons and the plaintiff. Witness never raised any objection to any such arrangement. Prior to the cloee of 1901 witness was shown a prospectus of a company, and was offered his securities in scrip; £10,000 or £15,000 was to be paid in by the Nelsons or the Tyser Company. Witnesis desired to ba paid out of the paid-in capital a few thousands. At first he asked for £9300. 'and afterwards for £3000. The defendant Johnson advised witness to have nothing to do with it unless witness first got his £5000 or £3000. Wit- ! ness understood that plaintiff -and Nelson j were to be directors of this company. Could not say as to whether Johnson and \ Stevenson were to be directors.

Cross-examined by Mr Bell, witness said he did not know his solicitor (Mr Fitzherbert) had been negotiating on witness's behalf in connection with Nelsons' offer. Johnson, whom witness authorised to consult ■with Fitzherbert, advised witness that he would do his best, but that he thought witness's securities were worth only £3000. Witness eventually received £8000, which Johnson pressed him to accept (witness's secured claim as creditor of plaintiff was about £16,000, and he had given the defendant company a guarantee of plaintiff's account up to £8000, secured or partially secured. The value of the securities had been questioned). Wm. Nelson, of the firm of Nelson Bros., gave evidence that the arrangement made by his firm with Mitchell was that they should advance £5000 on security on condition of getting tlie carrying trade of the freezing works at Aramoho for a term of years, with the option of taking over Reid's securities. Plaintiff had other securities to offer besides those involved with Reid. It was witness's duty to verify all statements made by Mitchell in London, and if they were found to be correct the arrangement proposed in London was to be carried out. Witness had no personal knowledge of the arrangement with Mitchell in London, as on arrival in New Zealand he was to await instructions from bis London office as to what he was to do Those instructions were contained in a letter of sth July. His company had ordered machinery for a lighter, the valuo amounting to between £1400 and £1500. /When witness saw plaintiff after coming to New Zealand at Tomoana he was prepared to .carry out the arrangement, but plaintiff explained that the conditions were not identical with what he had mentioned in London. Witness promised to reconsider the matter, and proposed a scheme on the 28th October for.the. formation of a new company, to have a capital of £45,000. Witness had a conversation with Johnson, who represented that Reid would have nothing to do with the proposal if either of the Mitchells had anything to do with it. He conveyed, further, that Reid was perfectly satisfied with his management, mentioning in a general manner that if he were to manage the business it would be a success, but oth.ei'wise it would be a failure. Witness told him that any scheme by which the Mitchells were to be excluded would not be acceptable to him, as his firm's object was to benefit the Mitchells. Johnson then told him he would oblige him by doing nothing until the beginning of the yar. Johnson gave no reasons. That was early in December.

Oross-examined by Mr Bell, witness said he was not aware in London that Mitchell owed the Loan and Mercantile Co. about £20,000. Witness would nob have been, a l-arty to any arrangement which did not provide for carrying on the business. He knew when he met Mitchell at Tomoana that it was impossible to carry on the arrangement made in London. He was asked and pressed to increase the cash contribution of £5000 by his firm and £5000 from Tyser's to £15,000, but he could not say by whom. Under witness's1 proposal Reid was to get £15,000 in shares and £8000 in debentures. Nelson Bros, were to have a first claim on all freezing space, and the Tyser Line were to have the light to all tile carrying of the company at current rates. It was further wrovided that Mitchell and his son would earn a living by managing the business, in addition to their interest of £5000. Replying to his Honor, witness said he told Johnson he would continue willing to carry out the arrangement up to the beginning of the year. Captain Richard Todd, superintendent of the Tyser Line for New Zealand, deposed in answer to Mr Jellicoe to having had interviews with the plaintiff in England and to having reduced his proposals to writing at the request of Nelson. Those formed the basis of the letter of sth July. Witness was asked to fret an explanation of the condition of Mr Mitchell's affairs as tliey stood at that date, and after receiving same formulated the proposal of sth July. He was aware that Mitchell had other properties than the works, and that some of them were included in securities to Reid. Witness supplied Sir Montague Nelson with a copy of the state of affairs on which the proposal was based. After the resolution of Nelsons' Board, on tihe 12th July. Mitchell was instructed to go down to Dartmouth and get specifications for the machinery for a lighter, the actual order for which was given by Nelson Brosi. It was represented that Mitchell's debt to! the defendant company was £8000, which was covered by a guarantee, and he represented that the other debts, amounting to £2000 or thereabouts, would be covered by stock, etc. Witness got back by the Paparoa on the sth October, and when he saw Mitchell later told him his (Condition had altered materially and that his debt to the Loan Company had increased very much. Witness saw Nelson subsequently, and afterwards! wrote to the plaintiff stating that although Nelson was not very keen on his present proposal, and preferred the original schejtte,' nevertheless he had no doubt they would be able to evolve some scheme when' they came together. Stevenson) did not say anything about his company getting Reid's securities, and showed interest in getting Mitchell out of his difficulties. He believed that was some time in November. Stevenson stated that Reid would not entertain any proposal that did not involve a cash, payment of £5000. Whether that statement was made at their interview or in correspondence witness did not remember. It was always understood" in regard to the future management that Mitchell was to be provided for in some form. Witness had an interview with Johnson -<7st ebfore Chi"'** mas. Johnson explained how very old Reid was. that he (Johnson) was the man who attended to these matters, aud that Reid

had expressed his determination not to join any scheme whatever if the Mitchells had anything to do with the management. Witness and Johnson went to see Nelson iwxt day, and confirmed his account >f the interview. The witness was cross-examined by Mr Gully as to whether the arrangement between plaintiff and: Nelson Bros, was to be «;flntiugttfit on Mr Reid and the Loan Ooirp^-v!"." b.'ing at «iied. and pointed out tlu;■'. the" pi-rintitt's statement of his affairs provided for their claim. His Honor observed that it was perfectly clear the matter was "borne in mind by Nelson Bros., as they did not commit themselves to anything definite until Wm. Nelson was thoroughly satisfied after his arrival in New Zealand. At the conclusion of witness's evidence the Court adjourned until the morning.