SUPREME COURT.

Dominion, Volume 6, Issue 1788, 28 June 1913, Page 3

SUPREME COURT.

FLOATING OF A PICTURE SHOW. IN MANNERS STREET. SHAEtJBKOKEB SUES PROMOTER. \ Bather interesting matters connccted withi the formation of the People's Picture Palacc Company, Ltd., proprietors of a picture theatre in Manners Street, gave rise to a civil action, which was heard in the Supreme Court yesterday, beforo his Honour Mr. Justioe Chapman. Plaintiff in tha aqtion was Henry A. Evans, eharebroker,. of Wellington, and the defendant was Francis Loudon, company promoter, Wellington. Mr. T. M. WiJford (instructed by Mr. A. M. Salek) appeared for Evans, while Mr. 0. N. Beere appeared for Loudon. The Sharebroker's Claim. In the statement of claim it was set out that on December 20, 1911, Loudon employed Evans to form a syndicate to purchase certain land in. Manners Street, and in. consideration Evans was to receive .£SOO. Evans formed the syndicate, which purchased the land, but there was etill owing to him a sum of .£lßl 17s. 4d., balance of ithe consideration. It was for fllis sum that he now sued. By way of defence, London denied that he had employed Evans to form a syndicate, but admitted that he had employed plaintiff as a broker to sell shares in a proposed company, afterwards incorporated as the. People's Picture Palace Company, Ltd. Loudon further said that no agreement had been made as to the amount of remuneration which Emails was to roceivo. Evans had sold -22000 worth of Shares, on which - JEG77 10s. had been paid. Of this amount he had converted .£352 10s. to his own use, and this sum (Loudon said) wus more than sufficient to remunerate him for his services. Mr. Wilford, in opening the case, wad a quantity of correspondence which had passed between the parties. He explained that though the plaintiff and defendant lived in the same house, they had communicated with each other in .writing in regard to the business out of which the present action arose. The correspondence would bo put in, and several witnesses would be called. ' - / ■ Witness Collapses. Henry A. Evans, the plaintiff, stated, thait the defendant Loudon occupied rooms in his (Evans's) house. Witness had know-ri him for a number- of years, Mid understood that ■ho had a brother of independent means in Sydney—W. J. Loudon, a retired merchant. The witness was proceeding to give evidence as to negotiations in the early stage of the transactions, when he collapstd in the box. He recovered quickly, but left the court temporarily while. the examination ■ of other witnesses was proceeded with. ' Edwin James Le Grove, a shareholder in the People's Picture Palace Company, Ltd., stated that he had also been a provisional director of the company. At a certain meeting of provisional directors the chairman had referred to an item in Evans's account as a matter between Loudon, and the latter then assented. ' To Mr. Beere: Tho amount was something botween JCSOO and .£OOO. The meeting was held before August 2. It was about 12 months ago—a considerable timo before the company was registered. ■Sarah Ann Elizabeth Evans, wifo of tho plaintiff, gave evidence .as to ,tho close friendship existing between _ Loudon and her husband. Loudon somotimes had dinner with them on Sundays, and frequently came in to play chess at night. Witness had heard from Loudon that ho (Loudon) would pay her husband .£SOO for selling shares in the picture company, the sum to be paid ,£250 in cash, and the balance in shares. To Mr. Beere: Mr. Loudon had always paid for his room since h6 had been in the house. He had a seriou9 illness some timo ago, but had thoroughly recovered as far as witness knew. Henrietta Alice Evans, daughter of the plaintiff, and William H. M. Stevens, sessional clerk, who was secretary of tho Peoples' Picture Palace Company, Ltd., also gave evidence. Henry A. Evans, the plaintiff, on being recalled, complained that he did not feel well enough to give further evidence at that stage. By agreement between counsel, it was decided that further- hearing of the case should stand over until a date to be fixed. SAWMILLER & BUILDER. THE TIMBER-BILL. In the Supreme Court yesterday, his Honour the Chief Justice (Sir Robert Stout) heard argument in a case in which evidence had been tendered as far back as November, 1912. Th© claim was for ,£2711 Gs'i 10d., alleged to bo due for timber supplied for house-building under an arrangement by which the purchasers obtained credit on the understanding that they transferred certain mortgages to the vendor. The parties were: James Drysdftle, sawmiller, of Nireaha, plaintiff, and William Joseph Perkins, builder, and Annie Perkins (wife of James Perkins,, builder), of Wellington, carrying on business under tho (Style of F. and W. Ferkins, defendants. Mr. C. P. Skerretti K.C., with Mr. G. H. Fell, appeared yesterday for Drysdale, while Mr; M._Myers appeared for the defendants. Particulars of claim and the defence were published when the case was beforo tho Court in November last. There were two main questions presented in the action: , , (1) Did the plaintiff in fact accept second mortgages from the defendants, as payment pro tanto of the price of goods supplied, without the defendants being concerned with the payment cither of principal or interest to plaintiff? (2) Did the defendants, when they handed over tho mortgages to plaintiff, warrant that they were good mortgages, and guarantee payment of principal and interest? • After hearing argument yesterday, his Honour reserved decision.