ISLAND TRADING.

Taranaki Daily News, 25 October 1921, Page 6

ISLAND TRADING.

A CLAIM FOR HEAVY DAMAGES. . MASTER MARINER OR NOT? A STRANGE STORY. A strange tale of an Island trading project, quite worthy of the pen of the fanciful story-writer, was told at the Wellington Supreme Court, before His Honor Mr. Justice Chapman and a jury of twelve, last week, regarding a ciaim for approximately £lOOO damages made by Thomas John Linton Buxton, accountant, of Wellington, against Jack Reginald Grey, merchant of Moorea Island, near Tahiti, French Oceania.

Mr. R. Kennedy appeared for the plaintiff, and Mr A. W. Blair for the defendant.

The story runs back to December, 1918, when the plaintiff and defendant came out to New Zealand together in the Ayrshire. Grey had been ordered by the Medical Board which discharged him after his war service to live in a tropical country. His intention was to go to the Islands, secure a plantation, and to trade as traders do in those parts. He told Buxton of his project, and, according to plaintiff’s story, represented that he was a master mariner of the mercantile marine service, that he had commanded an American schooner for a year or so in the Solomon Group prior to the war, and that his considerable service and experience as a seaman and officer in the mercantile marine, and his holding of a Board of Trade certificate entitled him to command a vessel anywhere. Buxton obtained employment in New Zealand, but Grey went away to the Islands, to cruise about looking for a suitable opening. He was absent for about three months, and on his return a proposition was made that he and Buxton, and certain others, should go into a business, Grey putting in £4360 and Buxton £ >OO. The idea, as then formulated, centred round the working of a plantation and general schooner trading about the Islands. The Government was approached for a subsidy, but the request, as the defence put it, was kept steadily in view, and Buxton, meantime, had found that the person to whom he had entrusted the “keeping warm” of his prosperous accountancy business at New Plymouth during the war was pressing him for a decision as to whether Buxton intended to resume control of the business of to sell the practice. Finally, in view of the Islands venture, Buxton decide I to sell his practice, and later took temporary clerical employment. Grey returned to the Islands to investigate post-war conditions, and a couple of months later returned with various schemes. A schooner was offered, but Grey did not like the vessel. “Perhaps,” suggested Mr. Kennedy, when referring to this offer, ‘“Grey was beginning to funk the position into which his representations and posing as ‘eaptain’ had placed him.” Once again Grey returned to the Islands, where on a previous visit he had entered into another contract, one of marriage. Buxton, a little later, wrote asking for a definite answer as to whether Grey had or had not a Board of Trade certificate, its registered number, date of issue, etc. An answer was received, said Mr. Kennedy, that a Board of Trade certificate, since mislaid, but replaced by a certificate issued by the Admiralty, had been held, and that Grey also had an ocean-going yacht master’s certificate.

“A SURPRISE IN A BOX.” Buxton, said Mr. Kennedy, wee not satisfied, and further correspondenca took place regarding the certificate or certificates held by Grey. To one of Buxton’s urgent inquiries, Grey wrote that he had papers in a box at the bank, which contained a surprise indeed. “What that surprise is we do not know,” said Mr. Kennedy. Grey, in his later letters, expressed displeasure at Buxton’s doubts and questions, and wrote that the business was at an end between them, the other parties having dropped out of the venture previously. Buxton based his claim for £983 odd mainly upon the ground that he had suffered. heavy financial loss as a result of his having given up his accountancy practice, though against that loss were set the returns from that business up to the time he disposed of it. Before calling plaintiff to the box. Mr. Kennedy insisted that Grey’s representations as to his captaincy and the certificates held by him were false, and it was largely upon those representations that Buxton had been induced to enter into the partnership. Prior to the war the plaintiff had had no experience of seafaring, but during the war years he acted as adjutant upon troopships. “Grey,” said counsel, “represented himself once as a captain, and from that went on and on till he eould not escape from the web of representations he had woven about himself.” The plaintiff, in the box, detailed conversations and divers negotiations between himself, the defendant, Government officials, and others, from the date of his first meeting with Grey up to the date when the Prime Minister was interviewed on the question of the subsidy. Witness also went into detail as to his own business that the extent of his financial loss on disposing of the practice might be determined. Other evidence called in support of plaintiff’s case had regard to Buxton’s accountancy practice.

DEFENDANT’S CASE. Mr. Blair, in opening Grey’s case, maintained that no deceit had been shown, and that therefore there was no case to answer. Grey had a master’s ticket quite adequate to meet all requirements for Island trading—actually, he said, a trader did not require a ticket at all for trading in the group. There had been no proof whatever that Buxton had lost money through the failure of the scheme to materialise; in fact, plaintiff’s own evidence went to show that he had been particularly lucky in not entering into the business, in view of the manner in which ships and values had collapsed. The venture fell through, not as a result of Grey’s having been unable to produce a Board of Trade certificate, but simply because the Government would not grant a subsidy. Plaintiff, said counsel, could only succeed if he could prove that damage was due to the falsity of a statement, and as that had not been proved, he submitted, plaintiff should be nonsuited.

His Honor agreed to reserve the point, and added that he had never previously heard a case in which a man was charged in the statement of claim with swindling when apparently he had at no time endeavored to obtain money from the other party. He would not, however, non-suit the plaintiff, but

would place the point before the jury. The claim was characterised by Mr. Blair as “impudent.” for, he said, Buxton not only had no complaint, but he was a most ungrateful person. Gtey’s certificate was precisely the same as that issued to a master mariner of the mercantile marine, except that as he had not had the necessary years of experience in the service, the certificate was given another name. Grey had, however, been connected with yachts and sailing since he was a boy, and probably his certificate was a better ticket than one issued to a steamship master who knew nothing of sailing ships. During the war defendant had acted as navigating lieutenant of a vessel of 3000 tons, but his big war job was the com,mand of a “mystery ship” in the North Sea. “Do you believe,” asked counsel of the jury, “that a man who was entrusted with work of that type is not fit to take a tin-pot schooner round about the Islands?”

Grey was to put in £4300, Buxton £lOOO, said Mr. Blair. If the scheme had turned out successfully, Buxton would have received a half-share in the profits; if it had failed, Grey wou’d have lost .£4OOO and Buxton £lOOO, and yet the plaintiff spoke of “marked cards.”

Grey had spent his money looking for a suitable plantation that he and Buxton might benefit on equal shares, although the capital to be invested was by no means equal, and when the scheme dropped through he decided to worry no more over that expense. Now, however, that Buxton made his “impudent” claim Grey was counter-claiming for the recovery of Buxton’s 9hare of the expense, £lOl odd. DEFENDANT GIVES EVIDENCE. The defendant said he was living in the Society Islands. He had been interested in navigation from childhood, and had sailed many yachts. He had charge of two yachts, one of 25 tons and the other of 45 tons for a season, and cruised round the coast of England. He detailed his experience as a member of the Royal Navy, and the nature of the appointments he had held during the war, which included the command of eleven vessels. He was navigating lieutenant on H.M.S. Albion, a vessel of 2900 tons, for ten days, and in command of H.M.S. Monsoon, and later of H.M.S. Chamberlain, the latter vessel being commonly known as a “mystery ship”. He denied misleading the plaintiff in any way, and alleged that Buxton had knowledge of the master’s certificate which he held. The letters he wrote to Buxton from the islands, in which he said he was possessed of several marine certificates, were written in the heat of the moment, and, to put it vulgarly, he was “pulling Buxton’s leg,” as he was annoyed at the contents of the letters received from Buxton.

VERDICT FOR DEFENDANT. His Honor, in summing up, asked the jury to keep before them the following questions: (1) Did the defendant by false and fraudulent representation induce the plaintiff to alter his position? Did the plaintiff suffer any pecuniary loss thereby? (3) If there was fraudulent representation, what was the nature of the representation ? His Honor further stated that after considering the above they would be required to answer two questions. These and the answers thereto are as under:

(1) What damages, if any, is plaintiff entitled to recover from the defendant?— Answer: Not any. (2) Do you allow the defendant anything on the counter-claim, and, if so, how much?—Answer: £26.

His Honor (to the jury, which had been absent for about half an hour): Gentlemen, your verdict is generally for the defendant, and you allow him £26. The foreman admitted that that was their view.

His Honor entered judgment for defendant for £26 with costs, also allowances for second day and third day and expenses.