PHOENIX MOTORS CASE.

Taranaki Daily News, 12 August 1922, Page 7

PHOENIX MOTORS CASE.

LADY ACCOUNTANT’S CLAIM. EVIDENCE FOR THE DEFENCE. BREEZES IN THE COURT. Evidence for the defence in the claim made by Miss Feakins against the Phoenix Motors Company, for the sum of £l4 15s, alleged to have been advanced by her to the company, was heard at the Magistrate’s Co <rt by Mr. A M. Mowlem, S.M., yesterday. Miss Feakins, who was represented by Mr. C. H. Weston, had alleged the previous day that she had advanced the money when there was no cash in the till to pay the wages, and that the sum was now claimed for with interest, bringing the total to £l6 16s 9d. Plaintiff’s case was concluded yesterday, and for the defence Mr. Croker had called Valentine Duff, a director of the company, and after his evidence was taken the Court had adjourned till yesterday. The greater part of the time yesterday was devoted to a lengthy examination and cross-examination of Gordon Roxford Weir, accountant, of Wellington, and formerly secretary of the Phoenix Motors Company. The day was remarkable for a number of sharp exchanges between the Magistrate' and Mr. Croker, who at one stage remarked: “Here is more behind this than you think. I am leaving no stone unturned to prove my client’s case to the hilt.” Several times his Worship called Mr. Croker to order on the grounds of irrelevancy and for interrupting his Worship, and towards the end of the day administered a stern rebuke, consequent on counsel’s statement that he felt that during the two days his Worship had been against his clients. The evidence adduced by the defence yesterday sought to prove that at the time the money was advanced the business was not owned by the company, nor did Washbourne as manager have any right to enter into any financial engagements on its behalf. Much was made in examination and cross-examination of the witness Weir, concerning his exact status when lie was on Washbourne’s premises, and concerning certain agreements under which he had been working. This witness was in the box for a litlte over two hours, and was submitted to searching questions concerning the transition stage in the taking over of Washbourne’s business by the Phoenix Motors. EX-SECRETARY’S EVIDENCE. Mr. Croker called Gordon R. Weir, formerly secretary of the Phoenix Motors Co., who recollected the Phoenix Motors buying the assigned goods of Mr. Honeyfield, and the bankruptcy of Washbourne two days later. Before that the company owed nothing. If the company had been liable for wages on the August 19, there was sufficient money available to pay them. The company had not paid wages before August 19 and had not received any claim for wages, nor did it employ anyone prior to that date. Mr. Washbourjie had been employed as manager, having been appointed by a special meeting of directors, but there was no record of the appointment in the minute book. He was not manager on August 19. The 1.0. U. was not signed as manager but as director. Mr. Washbourne had not told him that he had given an 1.0. U. to Miss Feakins on behalf of the company, and up ta his bankruptcy had not paid wages on behalf of the company. On August 19 Miss Feukins was employed by Washbourne; she had no association with the Phoenix Motors. She had not told him that she had advanced money for the company.

Mr. Croker handed witness a number of papers, which witness identified as minutes made by him of conversations between Miss Feakins and himself, the first being dated November 7. These minutes were made shortly after each conversation. Miss Feakins hed made her first statement about advancing the £l4 15s on November 7, when she asked to whom would she look for payment. He had told her he would look into the matter and do what he could to assist her. She suggested that Washbourne was liable, and when witness had mentioned that it was certainly Washbottrne’s debt he thought that as it was a claim for money paid- as wages she might have a fair claim against the estate. On November 12, when Miss Feakins was leaving, he had advised that if she needed the money urgently she should get an order on Washbourne’s wages. Four days later he had another conversation with Miss Feakins, when she asked him about the £l4 15s, and when the company was going to pay it.

This was the first he had heard from her connecting the company with the matter, and she had said she must get it from somebody. If she didn’t she would consult Mr. Weston. Miss Feakins had again mentioned the matter of November 19. Prior to plaintiff mentioning the fact to him he had no knowledge of any 1.0. U. On August 18 and 19 Washbourne had tried to raise a loan from him, but was unsuccessful. He next spoke to Miss feakins on December 3, when she was out of the company’s employ. He had told her then that if she considered she had a claim against the company she should put it in writing ami he would place it before the directors. Miss Feakins had then intimated that she had an 1.0. U. signed by one of the company’s directors, but she had not produced it, as it was left at home. Miss Feakins had subsequently approached the company for re-engagement. PREVIOUS CASES. Here the Magistrate interpored, stopping Mr. Croker in his examination, on the ground that this matter was irrelevant. Up to the time he had left the company on June 1, witness continued, the company had had no intimation from Messrs. Weston and Billing that they were making the claim on behalf of Miss Feakins. The directors had already intimated that they would not recognise the claim. On August 19 he was in Washbourne’s place as bailiff. Here another slight breeze sprang up„ when Mr. Croker took exception to an t explanation that Mr. Weston was about to interpose on the subject of Weir’s exact status when he was in Washbourne’s place. Mr. Weston prepared to quote from a previous case with a view to enlightening his Worship on the point, when Mrf Croker protested that his friend was about to do what the Magistrate had forbade him to do the previous day. “Your Worship said yesterday that you could not disassociate your mind from the previous cases.” “I did not,” said Mr. Mowlem.

“You* used words to the effect that you could not forget all that had gone before, and if my friend is going to read all these things I want the right to recall all these things; I want the right to recall all the directors to refute the statements made.”

Mr. Mowlem again interposed, and the examination proceeded. Witness proceeded to give evidence concerning the formation of the Phoenix Company and the sources from which they acquired their plant and stock. Witness also gave particulars of a distress warrant which was issued against Washbourne personally a few days./after August 19. He thought that W’ashbourne would know that the Phoenix Motors had a credit balance on that date, while he knew that £5O had been paid in to the company a few days before. He had not made any inquiries as to where the money had gone. To Mr. Weston: On August 19 he was at Washbourne’s as Honeyfield’s bailiff, and on March 5 as trustee for the proposed company. He had left a few days later, as Washbourne would not sign the preliminary agreement. The agreement produced was the draft of the preliminary one which was not signed. He had made the notes on the interviews with Miss Feakins on the days the actual conversations had taken place. He had made the notes because he sensed trouble and he had done liekwise in other centres. Mr. Weston suggested that witness had made all the notes on the one day, but witness denied this. To Mr. Wepon: He had been secretary of the company since its incorporation in July, and they had opened a banking account. Prior to July 30 the company had bought goods, ..but had not sold them, although some of them had been disposed of with its approval. He was also present there as Honeyfield’s bailiff. Mr. Weston: May I put it to you that it was not until Mr. Croker circularised the creditors on July 30 that it became generally known that you were there as Honeyfield’s bailiff? Witness: I would not deny that. Referring to the amount of £l4 15s and witness’s statement that .Washbourne had told him on August 18 or 19 that there was no money in the till to pay the wages, Mr. Weston asked why the Phoenix Motors paid the wages for the following week and not for that ending on August 19. Witness replied that they w’anted to keep the staff together. He had taken no steps when Washbourne had spoken to him regarding the emptiness of the till, but later Washbourne had told him he had raised a loan. He had no idea he had got the money from Miss Feakins, and when she had told him that she had advanced the money he denied he said, “So you were the mug?” A “GONE” CONCERN. William P. Nicholl, chairman of directors of the Phoenix Motors since the company’s inception, said that Washbourne-had no authority on August 19, to his knowledge, to sign the 1.0. U. on behalf of the company or to make any financial arrangements whatever on their behalf. The company had been formed to acquire Washbourne’s business as a going concern, but they were a little late and acquired a “gone” concern. The intention had been that Washbourne was to become manager and a director, but he could not say if the actual appointment was made. Negotiations had been going on for a long time, and he had “sort of drifted” into it. Washbourne had never spoken to him about borrowing money in the company’s name. Washbourne’s managership was a very limited affair, and he was made aware of the terms under which he was to act. Miss Feakins had not spoken to .him regarding money. The Phoenix Company was not in business on August 19. COUNSEL WISHES TO ENTER BOX. Mr. Croker then rose and said that he wished to enter the box and give evidence himself. He was very familiar with ail the happenings during the transition stage. ‘‘l feel that during these two days,” said Mr. Croker, “the Bench has been against my clients.” “Mr. Croker, please don’t say such things,” said his Worship. “How can you know the mind of the Court in the matter? It is not consistent with dignity in the first case, and it is untrue in the second.” “It is not untrue,” rejoined Mr. Croker. “I have been so impressed with your attitude in this case.” Mr. Croker then made to enter the box, but Mr. Weston objected, and proceeded to quote authorities on the subject of counsel giving evidence. Mr. Croker did not press the point, and then proceeded to sum up his case. After Mr. Weston’s address, Mr. Mowlem intimated that he would reserve his decision for a week or two to consider the points of law raised by counsel.