SUPREME COURT- CIVIL SITTINGS.

New Zealand Times, Volume XXXII, Issue 5172, 19 October 1877, Page 5

SUPREME COURT- CIVIL SITTINGS.

Thursday, October 18.

(Before his Honor Chief Justice Preudergasl and a special jury.) GILLON V. MACDONALD AND OTHERS.

The following are the names of the jury;— Messrs. Alcorn, T, McKenzie, W. Lawson, B. S. Ledger, J. Dransfield, P. Laiug, J. Cruiokshank, J. Watt, C. White, Tolhurst, Hester, and MoTavish. Mr. Barton and Mr. Buckley appeared for the plaintiff, and Mr. Travers and Mr. Ollivier for the defendants.

Mr. Buckley opened the case for the plainHff. It was an action brought by the plaintiff to be allowed to enter upon his rights as an alleged partner in the proprietary of a paper Called the Evening Argue, in order that the partnership be wound up. Plaintiff also claimed compensation for the depreciation in the value of the property since he was denied his rights as a partner, through the paper being edited by Mr. William Hutchison, Mayor of Wellington, and advocating that gentleman’s views and opinions, which were opposed to those previously advocated in the Argus.

Mr. Barton followed on the same side, and stated that the plaintiff was formerly editor of the Evening Post, at a salary of £8 per week. Hia connection with that journal ceased in the latter end of 1875 ; and some gentlemen, desirous of retaining-Mr. Gillon’s services as a journalist in Wellington, agreed to start another paper. However, there was a journal published in Wellington at that time called the Tribune. Mr. Hutchison, its proprietor, was willing to part with the property, and a bargain was concluded by which Mr. Hutchison was to receive £3OOO for the Tribune—£looo paid down, £IOOO in instalments, and the balance at the end of five years. It was thought desirable to change the opinions, of the paper, and in consequence its name was also changed. The. original partners in the business were E. T. Gillon, J. Waters, 11. Kent, W. Hayes, J. Stewart, and 0. MoKirdy ; the three first to be managing directors. There was an understanding that the plaintiff should edit the paper for five years, the term of partnership, at a salary of £6 per week. Mr. Macdonald entered the firm in March last,' and it was distinctly understood that he was to be a sleeping partner. However, Mr. Macdonald was not long in the firm till he assumed a very active part in the management, and endeavored to change the tone and opinions of the paper, altering Mr. Gillon’s writings, and in some instances excluding them from the paper altogether. A managing committee was appointed without the knowledge of the plaintiff. Their names were Macdonald, Greenfield, and ■ McKirdy. How Mr. Greenfield came into the firm was not very clear. At the meetings of the proprietary he (Greenfield) had frequently acted as Mr. Stewart’s proxy. An article appeared in the paper about some action of the City Council, and the next day Mr. Gillon received a letter from Mr. Macdonald, in which, in reference to the article, he was accused of ignorance of facts, want of principle and ability to grasp a true view. This seemed to have facilated matters, and the next day an interview took place between Gillon and Macdonald. Gillon called Macdonald a scoundrel, and accused him of desiring to use the columns of the paper for the purposes of a ring. After this the plaintiff was denied all rights in connection with the partnership. There had also been some dispute between Mr. Macdonald and Mr. Gillon, through an agreement having been entered into by the latter with Mr. Bunny to charge him nothing for advertising, with a view of the paper getting work from the province, Mr. Bunny then being Provincial Secretary. The registration of the paper was handed in, and showed that on the 4th April, 1876, the registered proprietors were Gillon, Kent, and Waters. Another registration was put in, ’ dated June 14, 1877, in which Gillon’s name did not appear. Robert Kent stated he was partner in the Argus Company. He kept the accounts of the firm from the beginning. He did not remember whether there was any alteration made in the billheads of the firm since Gillon left. He signed his name in October, 1876, to a document as assenting to a transfer of Gillon’s shares to McKirdy. At a meeting of the proprietors in December following, Gillon’s name was put down in the minute book as being present. In January, 1877, there was a meeting of partners, at which Gillon attended. Witness then understood that Gillon attended on sufferance, he having parted with his shares. He attended other meetings afterwards. On the 28th March a resolution was carried to the effect that the “shares in the paper were to be allotted as follows : —C. McKirdy, 4 shares ; T. K. Macdonald, 2; John Waters, 1 ; K, Greenfield, 1 ; J. Saunders, 2 ; J. Stewart, 1 ; R. Kent, 1. The minute of the above was read in the presence of Mr. Gillon on the sth April, and he made no objection to his name being omitted from the list of proprietors. After the 14th October, the date on which he transferred his shares to McKirdy, Gillon was never treated as a proprietor. .Witness did not know why Gillon’s name appeared in the minute-book as a proprietor. His name was put down because he was present. Gillon was requested to be present at the meeting on the sth April. When McKirdy handed- the alleged transfer, he stated he was taking over Gillon’s interest in the paper. Gillon was not present at the meeting on the 28th March. McKirdy told witness a week before the transfer that he had lent Gillon money to go into the Argus, as he could not pay the money he was taking over his interest.. He never looked upon Gillon as a proprietor after that. He did not know why he had said this action was brought against Macdonald only. It was perhaps through the notifications in the papers.

Edward Thomas Gillon, the plaintiff, deposed that he had been connected with the Press of Wellington for ten years. He had two shares in the company, value £250.’ Mr. McKirdy lent £l9O of this amount; Mr. McKirdy took no acknowledgment or security whatever for the amount. The money was lent to him on the understanding that it was to be repaid out of the earnings of the paper. The first suggestion of his giving McKirdy security came from plaintiff. Some time in October he was aware that McKirdy was being pressed, and witness said there was £l9O of his money in the Argus, and told him he could use it as a security. McKirdy said it would help him. A few nights after witness met McKirdy, who, with witness and Mr. Saunders, went into the Prince of Wales Hotel. McKirdy showed him an assignment, in which the consideration was £250, Plaintiff said “ Why, this is an absolute sale.” McKirdy said it was all right : that waS the way the lawyers thought it should be done. McKirdy

further, said he would not act upon it without giving a month’s notice. When it came to the signing, Saunders said, “Look here, McKirdy, if this is to put Gillen out of the concern; I will have nothing to do with it.” McKirdy replied that it would not be given effect to, as he only wanted it for security to the bank. Witness distinctly understood that the other partners were not to know anything about it. It was not till last June that he was aware that his other partners knew of the transaction. There was no money paid to him by McKirdy on account of his shares other than the £l9O he first lent. The

first he heard of Macdonald entering th firm was McKirdy telling him that Mac donald wanted to buy Hayes' shares. Wit ness was present at a. meeting held ii March, at which Mr. Hayes intimated that h desired to sell his interest to Messrs. Mac donald and Turnbull. It was decided to sel to Macdonald only. Witness objected ti Macdonald coming in, as he thought he wa purchasing to serve some particular purpose and at witness’ suggestion a resolution wa carried to the effect that Macdonald shouh come into the firm on the same footing ai Hayes. The paper was not in such a condi tion at the time as to induce any one to buy it for mere business purposes. Up to Macdonald coming in, no one ever interfered wit! his editorial management. He was nevei told at any of the meetings that ha wa; there on sufferance. He took a very prominent part in the proceedings of the meetings. After the 9th October, 1876, witness frequently advanced money to pay the men, He signed cheques up to the time of Macdonald coming in. He made all sorts of arrangements after the 9th October, just the same as before. He forgot what kept him away from the meeting on the 28th March. He had no intimation that a fresh partnership deed was to be drawn up at the meeting on the 28th March. On the sth April witness was present at a meeting, but he did not think he was present when the minutes were read. That was the first time he had met Macdonald as a partner. He consulted with Macdonald about the libel. He believed the alleged libel was true at the time. He was still firmly of opinion that what was stated in the paper was true. It was resolved by the partners to defend the - action. ■ Macdonald was then present. He had no reason to suppose before the meeting in March last that he was to be excluded from the partnership. Mr. Hynde, a lawyer's dark, asked him for a draft of the original partnership ; hut witness thought it was wanted simply for the purpose of having Macdonald’s name inserted instead of Hayes. The first time Macdonald interfered with the management was in discharging Mr. Usher, a reporter, without the knowledge of witness. Macdonald was one of the directors of the Reformer Newspaper Company, and a Mr. Hooper sued that company for dismissal without proper notice. Witness was called to give evidence as an expert, and stated , that it was the custom to give editors threa month’s notice of dismissal. The next day he received a letter from Macdonald stating that his evidence was absurd, and asking him to come to an agreement that his engagement on the Argus should be terminable at a month’s notice on either side. Witness refused to enter into any such arrangement. Regarding the libel action, Mr. Travers sent in a hill of £SO to the firm. Macdonald at first appeared disinclined to have anything to do with it, as the libel took place before he was a member of the firm.; He afterwards understood that Mr. Macdonald agreed that the money should be paid by cheque on the firm. He was much annoyed at Macdonald altering his articles. He received a letter from him stating that everything that went into the paper would have to go through his hands, and stating that in a recent article he had shown want of principle and ability to grasp the right view. He shortly afterwards met Mr. Macdonald and Mr. McKirdy, and some angry words ensued, daring which Macdonald said “We are not going to leave the paper in the hands of a man of your character.” Witness used some strong language to Macdonald, and the latter said that they would discharge witness from the paper. He replied that they would have some trouble to put him out, as he was a partner. McKirdy heard this, and 'he did not dissent. Witness then detailed the circumstances under which he quitted the editorship of the paper,—first receiving a written notice, and afterwards being prevented by one of the partners from taking an active part in the carrying on of the paper. He understood that Mr. Hutchison succeeded him as editor of the paper, and the views of the paper had greatly altered, in consequence of which witness was aware of several parties ceasing to subscribe to the paper. During the election witness took an active part in supporting Mr, Travers, both in the paper and outside. Since then the paper had several times “ pitched into” Mr. Travers. There was a decided change in the tone of the paper, which would now uphold the Mayor and his friends in everything. Before witness left the paper, he wrote an article, stating that although contractors had a pecuniary interest in the paper, yet, according to the deed of partnership, they had no control over its editorial columns. Mr. Macdonald saw that leader, and approved of it. Witness then detailed an account of the bailiffs taking possession of his furniture for costs incurred in the libel action. He had no intimation whatever that his goods were going to be seized. He succeeded in raising money under a bill of sale to pay the amount of the execution.

Cross-examined : MoKirdy did not lend him any money after he advanced the £l9O. Witness afterwards gave MoKirdy a promissory note for £77 on account of rent. That was not taken into consideration at the time of the transfer. MoKirdy still holds the promissory note. Had witness satisfied the promissory note he should certainly have asked for its possession. He was not aware of the change which took place in 'the imprint of the paper on the 22nd May last. He wrote his resignation as editor in April, and showed it to Mr. Stewart; but it was not acted upon. MoKirdy has repeatedly stated that he only held the shares tor witness, and as, soon as the money was paid he would hand them over. He continued to act as a partner, after the alleged transfer, as a matter of right. He had not requested his partners to allow him to do so to prevent consequences which might arise from parties outside knowing that he had parted with his interest in the paper. Re-examined ; Gillon, Kent, and Waters were sued by Mr. Mullins in June last for the right of using a certain corner for advertising. None of the partners then hinted that witness was not a member of the firm.

Ifrcderick Cook, manager of the Colonial Bank, stated that the firm of Gillon, Kent, and Waters had an account at the bank. He produced a bill signed on the 18th December by the members of the firm, and endorsed by Gillon. The account Continued in the name of Gillon, ■ Kent, and Waters till the 11th of April, when it was removed altogether. John Edward Hayes, plumber, stated that he was until lately a partner in the firm of Gillon, Kent, and Waters. Witness sold out to Macdonald. He said he wanted to buy the shares for himself and Mr. Turnbull. At a meeting held in March Gillon said that he thought Macdonald was coming in to oust him. There was some conversation, and it was said thatwitnesscouldouly sell his shares to one, and that Macdonald should occupy the same position in the firm as witness. The position of Giilon he understood to be that McKirdy lent the money for the shares at first, and at the time of the transfer witness asked McKirdy if Gillon was going out of the firm. MoKirdy said if Gillon paid the money back he could have his shares again. From conversations amongst members of the firm he understood that it was an absolute transfer, and that Gillon was going out of the firm. There was no difference made as to Gillon’s position till near the 21st March. About that time there was some dissatisfaction about certain articles in the paper in reference to the plans for the town hall. /

William Miller Lewis, of the firm of Boiler and Lewis, remembered sending a bill of costs re Argus libel case to Messrs. Travers and Ollivier. Mr. Macdonald and Mr. Greenfield afterwards saw witness, and the former said, “ You have sent us a bill of costs. How do you expect to get it paid ?” He said he would get it by putting in au execution against the

three defendants. Macdonaldsaid, “Suppose you go to Gillon first.” Witness replied that he by that might lose the other two. Macdonald said he would see that it would be all right. Witness then, with the sanction of Mr. Anderson, put the execution in Gillon’s house. Macdonald also said that Gillon wrote the article, and should be made to pay for it. The above closed the evidence for the plaintiff, and the Court adjourned till the following morning at 10 o’clock.