Aramoho Meat Freezing Works.

Wanganui Chronicle, Volume XXXXVII, Issue 11739, 17 September 1902, Page 5

Aramoho Meat Freezing Works.

A NGX-SUlr REFUSED. Per Pi ess Association. * WELLINGTON. September 16. On the Court resuming this morning, Mr Gully, on behalf of the defendant Stevenson, submitted tliat if the property was an equity it belonged to the defendant company and not to bt&venson, and uo coiim tor damages for equitable reliei could be made good against Stevenson. He moved for a non-suit on the ground of absence of proof of specific fraud and absence of proof of damage. There was no personal gain on behalf of Stevenson in tlie transactions, and any case of fraud against the other defendants must necessarily be weaker as against Stevenson.

His Honor said there was no fraud of the defendant company unless it was the fraud of Stevenson. They stood or fell together. Ihe acts alleged against the company were the acts of Stevenson.

Mr Gully admitted that the acts on which the allegation of fraud against the comr»any were made were the same acts as those on which were based, the allegations against Steyfenson. He defended the right of two creditors like the company and Reid to combine. Restitution and an account of business were claimed in the first place, and secondly £10.000 damages. If the former claim succeeded it exhausted the whole claim, and there could bs no damage. In any case no damage could be iproved.

His Honor said he did not feel disposed to non-suit plaintiff at the present stage. It was not the usual course, after an eight days' trial, and he thought it would be best for all parties ta get it-lie whole position so that if the .case went to the Court of Appeal it couM be finally dealt with. With such a moss of papers he could not at this stage deal exhaustively with the case so as to deal with it off-hand. Plaintiff was entitled to go on with his case.

Mr Bell, in opening' the ease for the cle^ fendants, said there Was nothing practically to add to the correspondence nut in. An accountant of Wellington, who had gone through, the books and taken statements by plaintiff's! son and Johnson, and who had arrived at the conclusion that the plaintiff was even more hopelessy insolvent than Johnson had represented, would give evidence. He called

Malcolm MePherson, general manager of the defendant company, who deposed that the defendant company certainly did not wish to fee Nelsons in Wanganui per se, but if Nelsons paid off the .company's account with the plaintiff, the company would have been delighted to see them. Witness hoped they would pay it off, but feared they would not. The presence of Nelsons in Wanganui might make a serious difference in the buying of stock. It might increase the price that was paid in Wanganui, but could not affect the price got r.t Home. Except for this greater buying price, and that Nelsons would take away from the defendant company the handling of some of the meat, the company would not.suffer from competition by Nelsons hi Wanganui.

Cross-examined by Mr Jellicoe. witness said the defendant company was a small shareholder in the N.Z. Shinning Company. Cbuld not say whether the defendant company was in London a shareholder in the N.Z. Shipping Company. There was an unwritten understanding*between the two companies to the effect thai the bulk of what the defendant company shipped should go by the N.Z. Shipping Company. Stevenson, as manager of the defendant company at Wanganui, had considerable discretionary powers. The defendant company controlled most of the output of the Wanganui Freezing Company. The defendant company's capital in the Wanganui Freezing Company was possibly about £1000. Did not think it was £5000. Witness thought Stevenson had a leaning towards the Tyscr line, which carried the produce of the Wanganui, Freezing Company. Witness understood that Stevenson's1, brother (J. L. Stevenson) was agent in Wanganui for th& Tyser line. Witness knew before September, 1900, that there was a possibility of the company losing the business of the Wanganui Freeznig Company, though the company's manager (Stevenson) was osi the WangaWi Freezing Company's directorate. The danger of losing their business wa» met by the defendant company giving the Wanganui Freezing Company better terms than they had been given before.

j MePherson, in furhter cross-examination, admitted having had a conversation with Stevenson, the defendant Ernest Johnson, and Clarke Johnson on the 7th September, when the arrangement with Reid was discussed. He believed Johnson had an agreement with him. Witness could not have

1 taken exception to the agreement being kept secret if the others thought it desirable. He did not know that the que&tion of compelling Mitchell to assign was discussed at that interview. Instructed Stevenson by letter to bring matters to a point with Mitehell. and left the carrying on of the details to Stevenson. He believed it might have been in contemplation that Johnson should control the works, and witness had the greatest confidence in his ability, discretion, honesty, and anxiety to do, right. Witness would not have concealed from Reid any facts which would be likely to. prejudice him regarding Mitchell's doings in London. His Honor : Did you ever look wpoiiMitr chell's works as a good thing to get hoM of? Witness: Certainly not. Witness, in reply to further questions by Mr Jellicoe, said he was aware that there was a remote possibility of Mitchell being able to cany out the arrangement, and he had three months in which to do st>. It was true that witness was determined on September 7th to compel Mitchell to assign or make him bankrupt. If the securities were worth their face value the defendant company would be making £8000 on the purchase of them. Mr Jellicoe: If your account is paid off will you give Mitchell the securities at the price you paid for them?—lt is a question I am not called upon to answer. Mr Jellicoe : I submit that the Court is entitled to know. His Honor: I am not going to make hrn answer anything of the sort. I don't believe he has authority. .The defendant firm is a company. Mr Jellicoe: He is their attorney in the colony. His Honor: I am aware that very few attorneys have any such authority. The casa is really being: protracted to an extent that is ccoming almost a scandal. I disallow the question. Get on. I'll take a note of it if you wish. Mr Jellicoe: Yes, your Honor, I do. I would bee very son-y to protract the case unnecessarily. To witness : Do you claim i to make a profit of £8000 on those securities if Mitchell's account is paid?—lt is a question I cannot answer. Mr Bell objected to witness being asked to answer such a question. Mr Jellicoe applied to have a note taken of the question if his Honor refused to allow it. His Honor: It is exactly the same question I have just disallowed. Really my patience is becoming exhausted. T won't take the same question in half-a-dozen djf-

1 ferent forms. Every time I give a ruling there is a long story. Mr BeM asked his Honor's opinion if the defence: should call any further evidence. They were thoroughly tired of the matter, and" were thoroughly satisfied to leave it as it was. Mi' Jellicoe.: I don't think my friend has a right to make an application of thSiPSort. If I did so he would bs the very first to resent it. Mr Bell replied that he did not maka any adverse comment, but. mil^.*} the tribunal considered they should tendst' fur* thsr evidence the defendants prouosed to close their case. What they desired to know was whether it was their duty to put other witnesses into the box? net whether it was necessary for their ease? Mr Jellicoe objected to his Honor giving any such indication. If he did so and the case afterwards went to the Court of Appeal, the questionTnight be asked why such a witness was not called, and the answer would be "The Judge in the Court balow did not think it necessary." His Honor: I don't think I ought to say anything about it. Mr Bell: Then, youv Honor, we shall take our own course as we may be advised. The Court then adjourned until the fflonii*£- „