LAW REPORTS.

Dominion, Volume 6, Issue 1828, 14 August 1913, Page 7

LAW REPORTS.

SUPREME COURT. J; D. WILLIAMS AMUSEMENT CO. DECORATOR'S CLAIM, EMPRESS THEATRE ART WORK. Quite an. interesting case came on in the Supreme Court yesterday, when the J. D. Williams Amusement Co., Ltd. (theatrical and entertainment proprietors), were sued by George. Boulter, of Sydney, artist decorator, for „C 350. The statement of claim indicated that about December 4 last,' at Sydney, plaintiff had entered into aft agreement in writing with tho <'efendant company, through James Diion \,"illiams,' their managing director, to paint tho ceiling and walls of the auditorium, vestibule, and staircase of the Empress Theatre, Wellington, with fresco colours, in an artistic manner, and without any inconvenience to tho business, for iS3SO. Plaintiff had duly completed the 'work, but the defendant company had. refused to pay the .£350. Mr. M. Myers (Messrs. Bell, Gull;/, Bell and Myers) appeared for plaintiff, and Mr. G. Samuel and Mr. A. W. Blair repre: tented tho defendant company. — The Work was Right, but ——? Mr: Myers told the Chief Justice (Sir Eobert, Stout) that the defendant com.pany was prepared to admit that the work was worth '.£350. but they denied , making the contract, Williams not having the necessary authority. He therefore suggested that they should empanel the jury and. adjourn until the afternoon, wheal tho jur.y could possibly be dispensed with. Mr.- Samuel agreed that tljo case could ho more conveniently tried without a jury, as the only question was whether . 'Williams had made tho contract. The defence did not propose to call any evidence as to the value of the wdrk. His Honour held that if it came to a point of law he would have to direct the jury, and therefore they might dispense .with the jury as tho case proceeded. "Worth £350, but Refused tc Pay." On resuming after the . adjournment, Mr. Myers said that the claim for .£350 and interest was ,for high-quality decorative work in tho Empress Theatre. The company did not refuse to pay bccituse of the price, their defence as to tho value having been withdrawn. It was a case of a company leasing a theatre, having tho benefit of the work l'roin a tradesman, ndniitting >it was'worth ,£350,. and yet revising to pay. . That was not the sort of commercial morality which any jury . would tolerate. They would bo surprised that a company, run by business mon, should take up such an attitude and endeavour to get tho benefit of such work •without payment. /The company was promoted in October last by a gentleman oiaiiied J. D. Williams, who came to Wellington from Australia, and who was managing director at a. salary of .45 a week with. 5 per cent, commission if the profit amounted to over .£IO,OOO a year. Tho agreement was made between plaintiff Mr. Williams, and the work wns carried out as agreed, plaintiff and his men having to work night after night from 10.30 p.m. to 9 a.m. Tho manager and the secretary sav; the work being carried o,nt, Save known 8?' It, but th'eir 'defence was that Williams had no authority to make the agreement. Mr. Williams, on February 6, resigned his-position, and expressed a hope that' tho-,contract' with ■plaintiff would bo kept." '•

The Decorators and .'the Job. Plaintiff stated that Williams called on. him in Sydney, and (old. him that he .was forming , this company, upon which lio agreed to take 200 shares. On his return Williams informed him that the company was formed, and that his 200 e'hares had been-allotted. The agreement to undertake the work having been signed, he (plaintiff) caino to Wellington, and with four assistants worked all night from 10.30 to nine o'clock from •December. 27 to January-28,. The manager (Russell) and' the secretary (Lister) saw-the work being done, and' as the scaffolding was suspended- from the .ventilators tho directors must .hare known what was going on. Russell told him that he* had a. letter from AViliiams authorising ths paynjojit of *£100 as progress payment, and this clioquo Ms'made out presented to Nathan (chairman of tho company), who declined : to sign it, remarking that lie knew nothiug about it. Williams wa.s jiow in America and Russell was in Melbourne.

Mr. Blair: Williams has never been in Kew Zealand sinco the company was formed. .

Plaintiff added that 'the manager and secretary, who had been told by AViliiams that he wjj3 coming, gavo iwm every facility for carrying on the woi-k. He completed the work a week after tho ohecjtio incident, hut had never received any payment. On returning to Sydney on February 5 lie saw Williams, but the latter was so ill with his own affairs that lio .was with him 'three hours without getting any satisfaction except tho assurance that it-would be all right.By Mr. Blair: Williams then owed him and still owed liim .£IOO breidos these 200 .El shares which were allotted t/> him.- lie did not 'think it worth while to see Nathan after ho had rrfnsed to sign the cheque, as he thought that-Wil-liams's powers were sufficient. The Secretary in the Box. J. A. Lister,- secretary of tho defendant company up to April 25 larf, said that ho had full cognisance of the decorative work which was being carried on, but when ho made out tho cheque for .£IOO as progress payment Nathan refused to sign it, saying that the matter "had never been before the directors." At this st.ago the three jurymen wfre. discharged, tho decision being left with the Cliief Justice. The Directors "Astounded." Mr. Blair, in defence, said that the work was dono during tho Christmas .holidays when the were away. Mwy were astounded to hear that this work had been done ill a . brand new theatre which was •erected only the year previously. ' They admitted that plaintill:' was an admirable workman, that the work was all that could be desired, and well worth the ,£.'150;, AViliiams undoubtedly assumed that ho had the right to order the work, but neither Nathan (chairman), Chapman, or Horatio Nelson (directors) had any personal knowledge of the order. If the directors had to pay it was better for future purposes that it should lie under judgment. Mr. Nathan Called, David Nathan, chairman of the company. said that WilliiHns left Welling- ' ton "a week before the company was incorporated, and he never returned. Ho was never clothed with any authority to give such an order as this. The directors had no knmvirdge as to this'contract until the work was practically finished, when the cheque was brought to liim to sign. By. Air. Myers: Whilst lis was away Russell was contrcHii:g the theatre under Instructions from Williams. His opinion was that tho theatre would have been beitter as it was. The company had. a large credit lialnnc-e. but this .£350 liad not" been stpcicia'llly ft aside. Mr. Blair contended I hat where an e«eirt nwdo a contract on l.ehalf of a foreign company or principal there was an assumption tlmt ho was nuking linnself personally liable, this ca.*o the contract was mado in Sydney. His Honour pointed out that the articles of a-=nciatinn allowed AViliiams to reside abroad, and also that the company was supposed to know what was going on on their own premises. After Mr. Mvers had the Court, his Honour reserved his deci*~>.