MONEY ALLEGEDLY OWING

Hawke's Bay Herald-Tribune, Issue 79, 20 April 1937, Page 5

MONEY ALLEGEDLY OWING

Former Employee Sues Theatre Director DEFENDANT WINS CASE Echoes of last year's court case in which, a penalty was claimed from Henry William Thompson for the alleged wrongful dismissal of Freeman Jesse Steele were heard before Mr J. Miller, S.M., in the Napier Magistrate's Court this morning, when Steele claimed from Thompson the sum of £26 10/11, being debts allegedly owing to him since 1931. At the conclusion of the hearing, which lasted most of the morning, judgment, with costs, was entered for tfie defendant.

Plaintiff was represented by Mr W. T. Dobson, and the defendant by Mr John Mason. Mr Dobson said that the plaintiff, who was formerly in the employ of the Thompson Payne Picture Co., claimed the xecovery of certain eums he had advanced to the defendant, who was managing director. At the time the business of the company was almost at a standstill, and defendant could not get money without the signature of his wife, who was in Auckland. Various sums advanced by the plaintiff had not been repaid. Freeman Steele stated ' that for a period of about 10 days following the earthquake he and defendant had used a house in Napier. Witness paid for groceries and defendant tho house-. keeper, the arrangements lasting until Mr Tudehope, owner of the house, returned. The three men, pending the arrival in Napier of their respeetive wives, agreed each to pay a third share , of the expenses, Defendant, however, had to have all cheques countersigned by his wife, who would not allow him any money. Witness, therefore, who was drawing a regular salary from the company, agreed to advance the money. Defendant state.d that he would pay back the money with a bonus due for wiring. In regard to the second claim, over a patent, witness said that in the course of conversation with an exchange operator, Mr Thompson agreed to bny a patent rotary sharpener for razor blades. He agreed to buy a half share in the patent, and instructed witness to pay the money on his behalf. Some weeks after, witness paid the money, and at the same time purchased tha other half of the patent. The letters patent, and the receipts were posted to defendant, who was then in Auckland. When asked for the money, defendant explained that his financial position was rather diificult at the time, and said he would have to wait. A duplicate receipt for the money was produeed in court, obtained by witness when defendant. had mislaid the original. Champagne and Cocktail. In regard to the third claim, the amount was for some champagne and a bottle of cocktail obtained by defendant or taken from the premises. Witness paid the aeepunt on defendant 4s instructions, after the latter had gone to Auckland. 4 4 While we were at Tudehope %" Mr Thompson used to stay away at night, and he said he was gambling," said witness in regard xo the fourth claipj. 4 4 One day Thompson asked me to bring round £10, as he said he had to square up. I did this, and handed it over to him. I received £2 during the year that was not meant for mo, and he told me to keep it. That's alJL I have Teceived.44 . Mr. Mason: You said you were the financial man of the party? Witness: Yes. I have said Mrs. Thompson signed the cheques and wouldn't give him any money. You were heavily in debt? — If you call £100 heavily." Do you limit it to £100?— >440h, no.44 When you were in Masterton you were acting as an insurance agent?-— 4 4 For a time.44 And an inspector of the company came specially to Napier about your debt?— 44 No. 4 4 You asked Mr. Thompson either to guarant,ee you for £200 or to lend you £200? — 4 4 Mrs. Thompson lent me £100, at 5 per centfL interest.44 Have "you ever paid that interest?— "No." Mr. Mason then proceeded to read off a member of civil claims brought against defendant in Masterton. Judgment Summons. Mr. Mason: At the time you were lcnding money to Mr. Thompson you had consent to an order of 5/- a woek on a judgment summons? Witness: Yes, but I was getting £7 5/- a week. oWeren't you getting £6 10/- a week? — "I was getting £7 5/-. 4 4 Further questioning elicited the sta#ement that following the reconditioning of the theatre, the business did exceedingly well. Plaintiff, however, was short of money at the time, but stated that defendant said he did not want his wife to know about the debts. Mrs. Thompson 4s debt was paid by a deduetion from witness4 wages until a whole of the amount owing was - paid. Mr. Mason, Why didn't you ask Mr. Thompson about buying the patent? Witness: I've asked a hundred times. If he sayS that you did not, then he is not telling the truth? — "It's absoluto falsehood." Witness stated that he had sent an account to defendant soon after his dismissal from the employ of the theatre and Mr Mason read a letter from plaintifFs solicitor, dated after the previous court case, and stated that this was the first demand that had been made, during the eix years it had allegedly been owing. Evidence .was given by George Tudehope, of the arrangement with plaintiff and defendant. He had seen plaintiff take £10 from. the safe, and after putting in an envelope he took it away. In cross examination witness said that £90 iu the safe after the earthquake came from the safe of the Gaiety Theatre. John Edward Diggle, of Napier, telephone exchange clerk, told of a conversation with defendant about a boning

invention. Thompson said he would take a half shate in the invention, and leave Steele to pay for it. The receipt was made in the name ofi Steele, aB he had given the cheque for it. He identified as his. writing the letter and duplicate receipt produeed. Mr Mason: There was nothing said about a half share being Steele' s, aud a half share being Thompson' s? Witness: No. I don't recollect that. The Bench: You don't know if Thompson took it to Auckland to get advice about it. Witness : I think there waB something said about getting some advice. Mr Mason then produeed a night letter telegram stating that the patent had been voided for non-payment of renewal fees. There was no record of an ass-ignment of the patent, Mr Mason said that the defence was an absolute denial that there waa any sum of money owmg, Defendant aumitted the arrangement, but had squared up. Plaintiff had alway3 been in debt, while defendant owed no money. There was no evidence of any demand made for the money, Henry William Thompson said that on Februray 5 he gave Steele £25 before leaving for Auckland. He had paid his complete share in the housekeeping expenses up to the time the witness Tudehope came into the agreement. Witness returned on March 8, and it was arranged that each man should pay a third share of the housekeeping expenses. Steel was appointed treasurer, and the accounts were settled every Saturday evening. Witness had never before seen the exercise hook produeed in Court, as Steele had .kept the accounts in a small pocket notebook. "Invefition Ndt Wofth Anythlns," . Iu regar.d to the patent, witness stated that he had never believed that the invention was worth anything. Steele, however, had been very keen about it, and had ideas of making a lot of money if he could buy it. Finaljy? he gave Steele £5 to help buy the patent. He later discovered that there were several of the patented idea on sale at a low price in Auckland. "My £5 went west, and there has been no mention of the patent since that day," he said. Mr Mason: What about the £10 plaintiff said he advanced you? Witness: He never advanced me ten pence. At this stage the witness was rebuked by the Magistrate for persistently continuing with liersay evidence while the Magistrate was addressing eounsel. Mr Dobson; You deny that you were advanced money by Steele? Witness : He never advanced me two pence, Do you deny staying at' Mrs Ryman's place in Nelson Crescent? — "I deny it.44 Do you deny visiting there? — 4,I might have been there once." Did Steele bring you any money there ? — ' £Definitely not. " In giving judgment, the Magistratej said there was practically no corroba-. tion of the allegation of plaintiff, Tha witness Diggle had had some recollection of the defendant having a share in the invention, but this was offset by th6 fact that the defendant admitted paying a sum of money for a part share in the invention. The evidence had shown, however, that at the time the debts were allegedly incurred plaintiff was desperately hard np, and it was not likely that he was in a position to advance money. The debt was an old one, and there jvas no evxdenoe to sliow that demands for pay m ent had been made until years after. Judgment was entered for dofeu-. dant, with costs.