“FLY CATCHER” OR “FLAT CATCHER”?

Hokitika Guardian, 19 July 1926, Page 1

“FLY CATCHER” OR “FLAT CATCHER”?

CHRISTCHURCH COURT CASE. At tho -Magistrate's Court, Christchurch, on Thursday, before Mr H. Y. Widdowson, S.M., David James *Srnith Diedrich of Kokatahi, Firmer, sued William John Pritchard, of Christchurch, hotelkeeper, to recover the sum of £SO and £0 for interest thereon from October 1924, to tie dato of hearing. Plaintiff was represented hy Mr (.'. S. Thomas, and defendant by Mr L. Charles.

In opening tho case for plaintiff Mr Thomas ij.iid his client was formerly a butcher, but was now • engaged ill farming operations near Hokitika. Some two years ago whilst on a visit to Christchurch, Diedrich was approached hy Pritchard and :.isked for the loan of £ICO for six months. At the tinifii Diedrich was short of ready money aitd told Pritchard so. Pritchard however, said there need be to difficulty over this and if Diedrich would give him two £SO promissory notes payable in three and six months, be would be able to discount then. Pritcliiird said Diodrich’s name was ‘'as good as gold.” Diedrich wished to assist Pritchard and agreed l:> give the promissary notes. To protect himself Diedrich asked for something in writing to show that the promissory notes were really cover in the nature of “accommodation bills.” A man named Robinson who was a. friend ol both parties was called in and he drew out the P.N.’s, and at the same

time wrote out an agreement which was signed by both parties. He (Mr Thomas) understood that the defence to bo set no was that tho agreement drawn up by Robinson was for the sale of an interest in a patent fly catcher of which defendant owned the Now Zealand rights. The Magistrate: Was it a fly citehcr or a flat catcher? Continuing, Mr Thomas said that if this defence was set tip ho would submit that the contract was ambiguous ■uul void for uncertainty. To any event Robinson would give evidence that the matter of the fly catcher was only put into the agreement to give Diedrich some sort of security. Hi any ease Diedrich had distinctly told i’rilchard he wanted to have nothing to do with the sli'irc in ih;> flv catcher. He had had previous experience in dealing in shares and had sworn <(f for over. The agreement which Plaintiff had signed 'provided that Diedrich should give Prilclmrd 14 days notice when the first promissory note became due if he did not wish to buy the share. Diedrich did this, hut most unbusino.s.s-like., ;is usual, did not keep a. copy of the loiter. When the first P.N. became due it wa.s presentee! at Diedricb’s hapk at Hokitika and not paid. Plaintiff i bought no more about the matter and did not trouble about the second

promissory note. Some eighteen months later in checking over bis bank pass book Jio found that the second promissory note for £SO had been presented and paid. Diedrich ilu'tt tried to obtain payment from Pritchard but without success and finally had to issue the summons. He called: David J. R. Diedrieh, deposed he was a, farmer residing at Hokitika. Ho recounted the facts as set out by Mr Thomas iri his address, and denied emphatically there was ever any suggestions that the promissory notes were given as I fie consideration for the purchase of a one-tenth interest in the fly catcher. The promissory notes were given to Pritchard to assist him and for no other reason. Defendant assured him he would be in a sound financial position later, and would have no difficulty in lifting the P.N.’s before maturity.

Cross-examined hy Mr Charles. Ho rocoginsed the. agreement produced. Ho read it over before signing it. Ho agreed that the matter of the. fly catcher was discussed. Tho option given to him to purchase a one-tenth interest Wtas only a, security. He never wanted to buy an interest in the. patent. Ifo did not know how Robinson canto to bo there. As far as lie remembered he and Pritchard met Robinson casually in the street. He (Diedrich) Lad previously l>oon interested witli Robinson in purchasing shares in patents. Ho had bought from Robinson an interest. in a patent collapsable box.

Robinson and he had I teen partners in a butchery business in Hokitika but this was before the present transaction arose. Pritchard and Robinson were partners at this time in some glass companies. He was positive he had written to Pritchard before the first promissory note Itecaine due telling him he did not want the shares. Ho had not checked over his hank pass hook for some months.

Re-examined: Pritchard had never communicated with him in any way regarding tho fly catcher since the second P.N. had been paid.

William: Herbert Robinson, commission agent, Christchurch, said he was a. friend of both parties. He remembered the whole transaction quite clearly. Diedrich had told him Pritchard wanted financial assistance and he (Diedrich) was prepared to give him two promissory notes for £SO each provided he had some agreement in writing. The three of them vent to the commercial room at Shade’s Hotel, and he (Robinson) made out the P.N. s which Diedrich signed. The agreement produced wa.s also drawn up and signed. Diedrich said distinctly at the time that lie wanted to have .nothing to do with the fly catcher. Cross-examined: He was quite friendly with both Diedrich and Pritchard at this 'time, and he was still so'. He was only trying to do Pritchard a good turn and at flic same time give Diedrieh some security. lie was a commission agent. Ho admitted that lie had in the past earned money hy selling shares in patents. Tike Mr Charles ho liked to get his money promptly but as there was no sugiiestion of a sale in tho matter Pritchard paid him no commission. This was the case for the plaintiff.

In opening the ease for the defendant, Mr Charles said lie relied on the. written contract produced which being signed hy both parties spoke foi itself. Tim facts, ns he wa.s instructed, were that in October 1924, Pritchard was the owner of the New Zealand rights in a patent fly catcher. He had secured provisional registration from the New Zealand Patent Office on 2nd October, 1924. At this time Pritchard and Robinson were associated in business in a glass company. Robinson suggested to Pritchard that as lie non had the provisional patent, he should try and sell an interest and get some money out of it. Robinson said he thought he could interest Diedrich in it. When Diedrieh came to Christchurch some days later the three of them met and discussed the matter. Diedrich said he would like an option to buy an interest. It was eventually agreed that Diedrieh was to have an option for sis months to purchase a

one-tenth interest. The purchase price was to be £IOO and two promissory notes for £SO were to be given. If Diedrich did not wish to go on with his purchase he was to give Pritchard 14 days notice before the first promissory note became due. No notice v,as given and the first promissory note became due and was dishonoured, and as Pritchard had discounted it. be had to pay it himself. When the second promissory note became due. it was paid. Defendant, stood by the contract and claimed that Diedrich still owed him £SO, being the balance of the purchase monev.

M illiam .John Pritchard, hotelkeeper, Christchurch, gave evidence on the lines of liis counsel’s opening address. I here was no loan to him. It tins a straight out option. He had never received any letter from Diedrich declining to take the shares.

Cross-examined hy Mr Thomas: At the. time oT this transaction he was not. financially embarrassed. He find never borrowed any money in his hIV except, in largo sums such as lie would have to borrow to purchase the Club Hotel in S’ydcnlmm. Robinson ;uggested the sale to Diedrich. Diedrich had previously made other investments ill patents on Robinson’s advice. He knew of shares in timber companies, and in the patent, box. He had not sued on the first promissory note because he was wanting to see how the second one got on. When the second promissory note was naid lie did no!

sue on the first, or demand pay men from Diedrich because lie wa.s waitin'

for the sales and manufacture to recommence. Tie admitted that nothing whatever had been done with the patent, sinee the sale to plaintiff. When lie saw plaintiff in Christchurch in

November last, Diedrieh said to him: "What about the £SO you owe me?” He (Pritchard) said: “Well, wlmt about, it?” Diedrich said there is a document in Mr Thomas’ office which will prove it. was a loan. He then leld Diedrieh if he could prove it was a loan hy any document at all. he would pay him. lie did not deny liability at this time because he wanted to “pump” Diedrich. This was the case for the defence.

To giving judgment, bis Worship said that in ids opinion the merits of (ho case were with plaintiff. No

doubt Diedrich bad been most unbusi-ness-like and lease in bis methods. 11c hid a most hazy recollection of the letter written to defendant and could give tho Court very iiUlv assistance in this respect. The witness, Robinson, however, appeared to be a witness of truth. There was no hesitation and uncertainty in his story. Pritchard by bis evidence would have tho Court believe that Robinson was lying. Taking all the facts it seemed to him that the story as told by plaintiff and Robinson was the correct one. It was admitted bv defendant that Robinson dealt in matters such as this and as an agent would lie entitled to a commission. But no such commission was paid. Was this likely i Again the story toid by defendant as to why he did not proceed against Diedrich on the first promissory note did not impress the Court, and was more like a toelt and bull story. Taking all the facts, the weight of evidence was in favour of . plaintiff. Judgment would be for the amount claimed, £SO, and £G for interest; Court costs £2 10s; solicitor’s fees £3 3s; and witness expenses, and Uiedn’cli would be allowed expenses for five days, and return fare to Hokitika.