A QUESTION OF LIABILITY.

Taranaki Daily News, 11 August 1922, Page 6

A QUESTION OF LIABILITY.

A LADY ACCOUNTANT’S ADVANCE. BREEZY CROSS-EXAMINATION. An advance of £l4 15s made by a lady accountant to her employers in order to enable the week’s wages to be paid formed the subject of a claim for recovery of this amount, together with interest thereon, at the New Plymouth Magistrate's Court yesterday before Mr. A. M. Mowlem, S.M. The plaintiff was Miss Ivy Feakins (Mr. C. H. Weston) and the defendants the Phoenix Motors, Ltd. (Mr. C. H. Croker). The matter in dispute referred to the time ,when F. H. F. Washbourne was .at the head of affairs. Passages in the case, especially the cross-examina-tion of witnesses for the plaintiff by Mr. Croker, were productive of several breezy interludes. The case occupied the Court’s attention for the greater part of the day, and was still unfinished when the Court rose till this morning. Mr. Weston explained that Miss Feakins’ claim was one for an 1.0. U. for £l4 15s and interest thereon, a total of £l5 16s 9d. Plaintiff was the lady accountant in the employ of the defendant company. On August 19, 1921, it was discovered that there was not enough money to pay wages. an<3 the manager (Mr. Washbourne) asked for a loan from Miss Faakins to pay the wages, an T.O.U. being given in the company’s name. The question of payment was brought up by Washbourne at two directors' meetings, he being told the matter was being arranged, but when Miss Feakins applied she met with a refusal. Her claim had been delayed* till the bankruptcy proceedings, in which Mr. Washbourne was involved, had been settled.

PLAINTIFFS EVIDENCE. Ivy Feakins said she joined the company’s service about three years ago. On August, 19. 1921, there was no money in the bank, and Mr. Weir, the secretary, had not turned up “to help them out.” In response to a request from Washbourne she got £l4 15s from her lodgings, but she insisted on an 1.0. U., as she did not trust the Phoenix Motors too ffiuch. She demurred at first, but subsequently agreed on condition she got a receipt or an 1.0. U. What she had heard about the company’s financial position was from the secretary, speaking in reference to some of the company’s creditors. She had not yet received payment of the money lent, though she had applied firstly to Washbourne. who said Mr. Croker had told him it would be fixed up all right. Witness wanted to go to the secretary (Mr. Weir), hut Washbourne asked her not to “as he didn’t want them to know he had borrowed the money from the office girl.” Each time she had applied to Washbourne he assured her the directors said it would be all right. About November she spoke to Mr. Weir about the matter, who said he had no doubt whatever that if the company was in a financial position they wojahT pay the amount. He said he knew Washbourne had borrowed the money, but thought he had borrowed from some of his financial friends. He added: “I didn’t know you were the mug.” She refused to go down and see Mr. Croker about the matter but saw Mr. Weston about three weeks afterwards. Mr. Weir had asked witness what side she would take if they helped her to get the money, but witness did not understand what was meant by this. She knew a factory cheque was supposed to comp in the day after she lent th,e money, which was one of the reasons why she advanced tlie amount. •The cheque, however, did not come to the office, but she believed it went to Mr. Croker.

THE CROSS-EXAMINATION. Cross-examined by Mr. Croker, witness said she supposed she was. subject to Mr. Washbourne’s direction, in complete charge of the office. In August, 1921, she wrote some cheques and Mr. Weir wrote some. The accounts she -paid out were written out from Washbourne and Weir’s accounts. This was the banking account she referred to when she said there was no money in the bank. She understood this was the Phoenix Motors, Ltd.’s account till the company was registered. After registration the banks were changed. • Tn reply to a question by- the magistrate as to the relevancy of the crossexamination. Mr. Croker said he was endeavoring to prore that the money was not advanced to the Phoenix Motors. Ltd., but to Washbourne. The cross-examination proceeded, but later the magistrate again asked what this had to do with the matter at issue. Mr. Croker: “Everything.” He pleaded with the -magistrate to be a little more patient. He had cross-examined in both Supreme and lower Courts, and judges in the Supreme Court had always accepted his explanation that he had a definite purpose in his cross-examina-tion. The magistrate reminded Mr. Croker that he himself had once practised at the Bar. A lengthy cross-examination followed hr to conversations between witness and Mr. Weir as to her claim. Mr. Weston protested that Mr. Croker should endeavor +o cut his cros«-examin- . ation shorter. “I ife is too short for this sort of thing.” he added. Mr. Croker said he wanted to sift the case properly, and the cross-examination on Mr. Weir’s diary notes was, he submitted, necessary. Further questionings hv Mr. Croker as to the amount of the wages paid out* in August. 1920. brought Mr. Weston to h»s feet to ask a<rain the relevancy of the cross>examination. The cross-examination was finished shortly afterwards and Miss Feakins left the box. F. H. F. Washbourne. one-time owner of the business, said a company was subsequently formed, of which he was director and manager. Ostensibly the business passed nut of his hands on March 5. 1922. On the morning of August ]9 witness informed the secretary that £l4 15s was required for payment, of wages, and the latter said he would attend to the matter, but did not return till about 5.30 p.m. Tn the interval, as it appeared the wages would not be ready in lime, Miss Feakins said that | to avoid any trouble or delay, she I would be willing to advance the whittll lb# **"■ hxtUSP.

This was done,, and the wages paid, witness giving her an 1.0. U. to covdr the amount, as Miss Feakins said she wanted some acknowledgement as things were not quite as they should be. The loan was made to the company and not to witness personally, on the understanding that it would be repaid next day when an expected cheque arrived. That cheque was handed to witness, but Mr. Croker rang him up to say payment had been stopped and asking for the cheque. He gave it to Mr. Croker, but explained that he had looked to the cheque to repay the money borrowed for the wages. He was told this would be all right, but the cheque was retained at Mr. Croker’s office. He subsequently asked for money to repay the amount at meetings of directors. The excuse was that the company was not financial at the time, but witness was assured that it would be al] right when money was available. To Mr. Croker: If the other directors went into the box and said witness had i not brought up the question of repaying this amount he would say they were lying. He brought the matter up unofficially, and therefore the matter would I not he embodied in the minutes of the ' directors’ meetings. Witness admitted ; he had been “sacked” from the company at a moment’s notice bu? he denied that he had since made threats about the company or the directors. Lengthy quotations by Mr. Croker from Washhourne’s evidence at the magisterial inouiry moved the magistrate to ask Mr. Croker not to introduce irrelevant details, and to keep his ; case within decent hounds. Witness, in answer to His Worship: I The company got the benefit of the ■ wages naid out on the day in question, i To Mr. Croker: He could not say he • had any authority to pledge the com- [ pany’s credit. On the day he had to I borrow the money he did not tell any of the directors there was no money to pay the wages.

The magistrate asked Mr. Croker if the Court was the place to challenge the managing director’s action. He again expressed a wish that Mr. Croker would keep to relevant details. THE DEFENCE. This being the case for the plaintiff, Mr. Croker indicated that the defence would be that the Phoenix Motors. Ltd. did not commence to carry on business till August 30 or 31. 1921. and therefore could not hp liable for any debts contracted prior .to that date. Valentine Duff, public accountant, and a director of the Phoenix Motors. Ltd., said Washbourne had no authority to contract liabilities in the name of the company. As far as he was aware the fact that the money had been borrowed from Miss Feakins was never mentioned at a directors’ meeting, nor had Washbourne told witness that hp had contracted a liability with nnvone on behalf of the company. Washbourne had not be appointed manager of the company till the comnanv had started business. It was stipulated that Washhonroe was to have nothing to do with the financial side of the business, and ' thi • was the principal condition on which shareholders contributed their capital. To Mr. Weston: The directors were the only ones who could appoint Washbourne as manager. Mr. Weston pointed out that on August 2W the waves had been paid out of the Phoenix Motors. Ltd.’s bank account. The case was at this stage adjourned till this morning.