CANTEEN FUNDS

Dominion, Volume 15, Issue 30, 29 October 1921, Page 2

CANTEEN FUNDS

A SUPREME COURT ACTION SERIOUS ALLEGATIONS Hearing was continued in the Supreme Court yesterday, before Mr. Justice Hoiking, of a case in which Lieutenant-Col-onel C. G. Powles, Commandant at Trentham Military Camp, and the Committee of Management of the Trentham ( and Featherston canteens, sued Thomas Balfour Mason for 4)1251 14s. 10d., in regard to alleged deficiencies in connection with the canteens previously named, and the alleged wrongful removal of a boiler. The plaintiffs made serious allegations as to the defendant’s conduct of the business of the canteens. Mr. O. Beere appeared for the plaintiffs and Mr. A. Gray, with him Mr. RKennedy, for the defendant. The case for the plaintiffs was heard on Thursday. In a statement of defence, Mason would not admit that the plaintiffs were a committee of management of the Trentham military camp canteen, duly appointed under the King’s Regulations, or that, they had any right to bring the present action; and denied that the plaintiffs were the committee of management at the Featherston military camp canteen from January 1 to June 30, 1920. He denied that prior to January 1 or at any other time, he had been appointed by the plaintiffs to be manager of the canteens at Featherston and Trentham, or that he was the servant, or agent of the plaintiffs. He admitted that, having been employed in a clerical capacity in connection with the canteen at Featherston, he, without any 'further appointment, acted for a short time in the management of the canteen under the directions of a canteen committee, after the retirement of the commissioned officer who was manager of the canteen. Subsequently, when the canteen at Featherston was closed, he acted in a similar capacity at Trentham. He denied having taken the boiler. He said that when the canteen at Featherston was closed, he received instructions from the chairman of the , then existing canteen committee to remove all stocks , to the canteen at Trentham, and to sell and dispose of all surplus plant and fittings to such persons as might be willing to buy. In the course Of disposing of the plant, etc., he proposed to purchase the boiler himself at market value; and it was accordingly taken by him for examination and inspection with a view to its being used, if suitable, in a dwelling-house which was being erected for him, but subsequently, upon examination by a builder and plumber employed by him, it was found to bo unsuitable, and was rejected. No use was made of it, and. it was afterwards removed from a paddock in which it lay, and was taken into the possession -of the plaintiffs or. their agent, and retained by them. He admitted that he purchased and received from C. B. Lempriere and Co. for his own use two tanks costing .£34; but he denied that he fraudulently informed C. B. Lempriere and Co. that the tanks were bought for the Trentham canteen, and he denied that the price was debited to the plaintiffs. If the price was so debited, it was a mistake by C, B. Lempriere,’without any request from the defendant.

Relating to the second cause of-action, he denied that it was his duty to sell stock at a sum equal to 12} per cent, above actual cost. There was no fixed percentage of profit, but it was understood that tho goods were to be sold to soldiers at rates lower than AVellington retail prices. The .defendant admitted that from March 31 to June 30, 1920, he received certain stocks at Trentham, comprising stock on hand and stock purchased, and that at the end of the period a quantity of unsold stock was on hand. Ho did not. admit that the cost or value was as alleged by the plaintiffs in their claim. Included in the cost of .goods purchased, he contended, were many items such as cartage, railage, paper, string, etc. He denied that during the period mentioned he had paid for or accounted for the sale of stock to the value of 4J2983 Is. Bd. only, and further denied that that sum was realised by the sale of stock. costing .£2651 7s. The goods actually cost more, he added, but were sold for less. Large stocks of certain lines had proved virtually unsaleable, and had been sold eventually at a loss. No -record was kept of cash sales, the only record being of the goods sold on credit to officers, members of the canteen committee and officers* messes, who in many cases bought on credit at cost price. Ho'denied that a loss of £420, or any ofher loss, had been suffered by the plaintiffs. He denied that lie had "J=nu<iiilently failed” to account to the plaintiffs for the balance of stock between Tune 30 to August 31. at Trentham, alleged to have cost £753 4s. lOd. The plaintiffs, he contended, had suffered no loss .in . that respect. -

Evidence for the defendant was heard, and the case will be continued to-day.