SUPREME COURT.

Taranaki Daily News, 18 May 1918, Page 6

SUPREME COURT.

PBOMB33ORY NOTE CLAIM.

(Biore his Honor the Chief Justice, Sir Robert Stout.)

At the Supreme Court yesterday afternoon the hearing of the claim by James M. Camming for £2Ol o n a promissory note against Reginald do Charmcsßeauchamp was continued before his Honor the Chief Justice (Sir Kobert Stout). Mr. A. II- Johnstone appeared for 'plaintiff, and Mr. J. H. Quilliaui for the de denfantArthur William Budge, farmer, Stratford, who was previously a bant manager, deposed to being asked to act as attorney for defendant prior to the meeting of creditors in November, 1915. The power of attorney was executed in his favor on October (i, 1(115. He was present at the meeting when a statement was made out showing Beauchamp's assets and liabilities. The only creditors were Matthews, Gamlin, and Co., Newton King, and the bank. The first notice he had of any claim on the promissory note concerned was in a letter from Mr. Patterson, received a few days before the due date of the note. He declined to honor the note. To Mr. Johnstone: He gave Mr. "Gumming no papers belonging to the defendant. By arrangements, all the pipers were banded to Mr. Trnby King, but witness remained attorney and signed all renewals of promissory notes. He could not remember the details of the assets or liabilities- There may have been some small tradesmen's account in addition to those of the three creditors mentioned. New.ton King, auctioneer, said he had considerable business transactions with the defendant. He remembered being present at the meeting held in November, 1015, at Inglewood, to ascertain Mr. Beanchamp's position prior to his going to the front. There was no mention at that time of any sum owing to Cumming by IBeaudbamp. Cumming admitted that the statement prepared at that meeting was a complete statement of defendant's liabilities. When he heard of the debt to Gumming, it was a "knock-out" blow. Oross-exam'med by Mr. Johnstone, witness said ho replied to the letter of Mr. Patterson regarding the promissory note asking for details, but to the best pi his knowledge no explanation had been received. James Macnicol Cumming said he had been accountant for Mivtthews, Gamlin, and Co. In July, 1913, defendant «id to him Ihat if he could induce him to buy any properties ho would give 'him a share of the profits from them. In connection with the sale an* purchase of West's property, West came into the office and told witness he had a property to sell. He told Beauchamp about it, and a meeting was arranged with West, and a sale effected for £1550 Beauchamp later met a man named Smith, and said he would like to buy his farm. Beauchamp told witness if he could fix up a. deal by taking West's property they could load the farm with as much as they liked, and ho would give £ll6 an acre if satisfied with it. Witness was to get a share of the profits of Beauchamp's transactions.

The Judge: Were your principalsMatthews, and Gamlin—agents in the matter?

Witness: "Yes, and they got £4B commission.

How is it that you were to get a share of the profits?— That was an arrangement between Beauchamp and myself.

Your inducement to secure a buyer, then, amounted to a fraud on the seller? The. witness, continuing, %aid the deal was fixed, the value of Smith's farm being set down as £IOSO- Smith took over West's property as part payment. Smith did not know that witness was to get a share of any profits from Beauchamp. The Judge: Then all I can say is, it was grossly improper. I can call ( it by no other name.

To Mr. Quilliam, witness said Beauchamp's profits on his deals amounted to £1023. In July he got a cheque for £25 from Beauchamp on account, and another £25 in September. Both were handed to Matthews, Gamlin, because tbey were in want of money. Witness said nothing about the liability at the meeting in November, because he regarded it as a private arrangement between himself and Beauciwnrp. He got the r.ote in Mathews, Gamlin's office on December 24. He did not give any receipt for it, and there was nothing, in writing between him and defendant. At the time of th* meeting be fc*<» rat con eluded arrangements with Beauchamp At first he was to get half the profits, but afterwards agreed to accept a fourth share. He knew he had got £SO in cash and a p.n. due in six months. Matthews and Gamlin got their commission out of all Beauchamp's transactions.

The Judge interrupted the witness, to remark that his answers were being given in a most flippant and unusual manner.

Continuing, witness said Matthews, Gaiulin paid hiin a salary- Mr. Matthews was aware that he was to get a share of Tieauchiunp'a profits. Mr. Quillium: Unfortunately, all the persons you say knew of the arrangements are not here to give evidence. Witness: Mil. Gamlin knew, if he would only admit it. Matthews, Gamlin's customers did not know. He knew defendant was aibout !to leave New Zealmul, that he might never come back, that ''here was a hig likelihood that lie wouli iot .be back before the due date of l'v note.

T :C Judge: He know Newton King aiul latthews, Gamlin were to_ act as ban' ,'Vs while defendant was itway. He never mentioned the liability of defendant to himself to either of them. To Mr. Quilliara: He was aware that the meeting was held for the express purpo-e of ascertaining Beauchamp's nnan" :, l position. Beauchamp left New Zeal" l lin January. He did not mention i-i'.e promissory note to any of the creditors. The note was not paid when it fell due, and proceedings were instituted. Decision was reserved.