FLOATING AN OIL COMPANY.

Taranaki Daily News, 2 May 1917, Page 6

FLOATING AN OIL COMPANY.

A, TARANAKI CASE. t CLAIM UNDER AGREEMENT. An action to recover expenses alleged to have been incurred in the flotation of a company was heard at the Supreme Court, Auckland, last Friday, by His Honor Mr. Justice Sim. The plaintii? was Percy Arthur Hadlcy. agent, of Auckland (Mr. H. H. Ostler), and the defendant the Te Hinu Oil Company (Mr. H. P. Richmond), operating in Taraiiaki. In his statement of claim the plaintiff declared that on October 9, 1913, hs entered into an agreement with the ".idant company by which he was to 'vn one moiety of the expenses of the flotation of a company, but not e.iucoding '£4oo, in the event of the failure of the flotation operations. the company was floated it ivas agreed the defendant should not be liable to pav any part of the flotation expenses. The plaintiff failed to float.the company, n-.id notified the defendant to that effect on September 11, 191G, and again in writing on October 18, 1910. Plaintiff further stated that he expended over £1842 in endeavoring to float the company, fuli particulars of which had been delivered to the defendant. The defendant had failed to pay tlio amount agreed upon, and plaintiff now asked for judgment for £4OO, interest amounting ;£9 4s, and costs.

The defence admitted r.n agreement to pay to the plaintiff a sum not exceeding £4OO in event of the failure- of flotation operations. These were in connection with the formation of a new company to the assets and undertaking of the Standard, Oil Company of Nf?w Zealand, Ltd., in liquidation. It .was admitted that the plaintiff failed to float the company, but it was denied that the plaintii; (expended over >£1642, or any such sum, in oxpenses of flotation, ''he defendant company asserted that it had always been ready and willing to pay plaintiii as agreed, upon being supplied with particulars of expneses and evidence of their payment by the plaintiff. On .Tnnuarv 19, 1917, the plaintiff delivered to the defendant a statement of expenditure in connection with the refutation of the' Standard Oil and Te Hinu properties, amounting to £1642 7s fid. It included items for hotel bills amounting, to £SIS, for plaintiff's attendance amounting to '£ols, and other large sums which defendant claimed were not expenses of flotation within the meaning of the agreement. The plaintiff had refused to produce vouchers or furnish evidence of payment of the, greater part of the remaining items of the statement of expenditure. Defendant had paid into Court the sum of £2OO, and maintained that this was enough to satisfy the plaintiff's claim.

Evidence was given by plaintiff, and after hearing counsel His Honor reserved his decision.