FOR SWEET CHARITY

Daily Telegraph (Napier), Volume 58, Issue 222, 21 October 1929, Page 8

FOR SWEET CHARITY

Per Press Association.

WELLINGTON MAYOR SUES . PR0510TERS. DEC1SION BY AfJl E. PAGE, S.M.

WELLINGTON, Last niglit. Dissatiofied with the accuracy of the balance sheet produccd I>3" the promoters of a jazz evening in the Town Hall several months ago, tlie proceeds of which were to go to tlie earthquake relief fund, the iMayor, Mr Troup, took I action against the promoters, Morris | Donih and Charles Forrcst, in the J Magistrate's Court recently. He claim- ] ed that the gross amount taken hj" dej fendants was substantiall.y in excess of the sum shown 011 thc balance sheet. ! and tliat a number of items shown as j debits should not have been incurred | or not cliargcahle against tlie rund. The decision in the c-ase was given hjMr Page, S.iM., in the Magistrate's Court to-day. NOT MUCH EV1DENCE. After reviewing the evidence given j at tlie hearing, Mr Page said there J nas ohviousl.v not mucli evidence availahle to plaintiff in his attack 011 the acc-urac.v of tlie amount professed to have been taken at the entertainment. Such records as xvould substantiate the amount were available to tbe defendants onl.v. For plaintiff, some F_itnesses had been called to give (%itli a view to caleulating the probable gros-s recepts) tlieir estimate of the number of people present at the entertainment. Tbese witnesses, said the Magistrate, estimated ihe xnimlxer as being suhsfantiall.v in excess of that .lndicated hy defendants' balance slieet, *but tlie estimates could not" profess to he xwry accurate. Tlie takingis at the door wero in tlie charge of two doqrkeepers, eacli supplipd with a roll of numhered tickets, and at tlie end of tlie evening the cash was halaneed against the number of tickets issued and tiie result entered hy eacli doorkeeper on a- card, which, with the uixusea portions of tlie rolls, was handed over to tlie defendants. At the hearing neitlier . of the. doorkeepers was ab'le to state with any degree of c-ertainty the amounts taken' by them. WHAT WAS NOT PRODUCED. For the del'enee, Forrest liad- given evidence, hut lieitlier cards noi> the uiiused portions of the rolls of tickets (which would have disclosed ' the number sold at the doors) had been produced. Donih, who eugaged the ticket sellers and subsequently prepared the balance sheet, did not go into the witness box. Evidence as to the sale of tickets that had been issued prior to the date of tlie entertainment was in a similar position. No record of any sort wherebv the proceeds tlierefrom could be cliecked had been produced at the liearing. "While I regard tlie evidence called for defendants relating to these matters -as vague aud unsatisfactory I am unable with so little evidence available to find affirmatively that the receipts were in fact greatev than the amounts sliown in the balance sheet. With regard to the expenditure, amongst the items is a sum of £TQ 10s retained hy defendants' to reimhurse themselves for tlieir own expense and Joss of time in ,'organising the entertainment. I tln'nk that by the terms on which they were allowed the use_ of the Town I-Tall theAr were not entitled to retain the sum. The remaining disbursements eannot, I tliinlc, he disturhed." Judginent was' enterecl for plaintiff for £10 10s, with costs to scale. .