A DUAL PERSONALITY

New Zealand Times, Volume XXXVII, Issue 8360, 21 February 1913, Page 11

A DUAL PERSONALITY

PUBLIC PROSECUTOR TAKES ACTION. THOUSANDS LOST. LONDON. January 12. An amazing story of a skattogrmk flotation was told on behalf of the Public Prosecutor at the Mansion House, when Percy Morgan, forty, a clerk. was charged with publishing a false prospectus while a director of the Brixton Stating Rink, Ltd. ' t Mr Bodkin, who prosecuted, said tho company was registered in March, 1909. it was to ihave a capital of -£'12,500 in £1 shares, of which 12,000 were described i “20 per cent, preferred ordinary shares." and 500 as deferred shares. The company was compulsorily wound up in February, 1911, under circumstances ~uch induced the Director of Public Prosecutions to institute these proceedings. The defendant appeared in relation to the company in two capacities and under two different names. When ho was promoting the company he was known as Walter Southwell Young, an outside broker, but, as director, he was described as Percy Morgan, which was hi© real name. * In the name of Young, defendant netted with a Mr Tewson, tho owner of land at Brixton, fer a lease of a corain portion at .£335 a year, with the option of purchasing the freehold for .£7OOO. In the agreement between the defendant and the company tho company acquired a scheme for formation of a skating rink, and defendant agreed to pay all preliminary expenses over and above .£SOO and to pay everything in excess of .£3500 required for the construction of the rink. What the defendant got from the company was .£2780 in cash, .£SOO in deferred shares, JESO which he had paid to Mr Tewson, and £3OO as commission on the alleged underwriting of 6000 shares. In July, 1909, the defendant joined the hoard, and two out of his three colleagues did not know that he was the same mam as Walter Southwell Young, the promoter. Tho first thing he did was to get rid ■of all nis liability for preliminary expense©, and for the excess cost of construction of the rink. This he did, in the absence on their holidays, of Mr Reynolds and Mr Corbet, by the board ordering the rink to be of double th© capacity and cost originally intended. Immediately afterwards Mr Reynolds and Hr Corbet ©eased to bo directors. The rink was opened to the public in October, 1909. with a great flourish of trumpets, but the owners of adjoining houses complained of the noise and nuisance, took- legal proceedings, and had to be quieted at an expense of £2700. Ultimately a receiver was put in. Knowing all this, tho defendant, as an outside broker, circularised people to become shareholders, and mode all sorts of false statements a© to the position Bud prospects of the rink, with the result that many people took shores and, of course, lost their money, A statement that the company had a reserve fund of £I9OO invested in house property was absolutely untrue. Eventually the company failed, with liabilities at £14900. Tho defendant was a discharged bankrupt. Evidence in support of the opening statement Was givpn, and the case was adjourned, the defendant being admitted to bail : n £2OO.