ACTION AGAINST M. P.

Gisborne Times, Volume XXVII, Issue 2628, 9 October 1909, Page 3 (Supplement)

ACTION AGAINST M. P.

TALE OF £IOB,OOO POCKETED AS

WAR COMMISSION

A partnership quarrel led to most serious accusations against Mr R p rloustan M.B:, for the Toxtetii Divisat Liverpool Assizes. He was defendant in a shipping partnoiship action opened at Liverpool 4ssizos. The plaintiff, Mr. Alfred Stephen Lollard aheged in his statement of claim that he was induced to sign certain documents by the fraudulent misrepresentation of Mr. Houston and also alleges conspiracy. •^ r ,lpl %var< l Carson, for the plaintiff, said that the parties were partners who had carried on business in Liverpool lor years up to October, iJUo, as steamship owners and managers. They were managers of the British and South American Steam Navigation, which was carried on under the tit.e of R. P. Houston and Co. Upon the termination of the partnership in October serious questions arose as to how the plaintiff had been treated. Sir Edward said the allegation was that Mr Houston M. P., pocketed £IOB,OOO out ot war commissions, and gave the plain.tiff only £2000 % whereas his share was over £IO,OOO. If that were proved, it was a transaction as scandalous as any ever brought before a court of justice. r If ’ bottom the hypocrisy ol Mr. Houston in making use of his position as a member of Parliament to defraud his own partner. Sir Ed- " ar d Carson concluded his opening statement. He said that enormous business was done by the firm in connection with the Boer war, raising the profits divided among the partners from £16,226 in 1899, the vear before the wair to £56,114 in 1900, the first year of the war, and 140,000 in 1901. The South American Steam Navigation Company. which was part of the Houston business, had obtained Government contracts for the transport of mules, etc., amounting to £1,080,000.

QUESTION OF WAR PROFITS

Mr. Collard, in the witness-box, said he had been with Mr. Houston since he was 14 years of age. Mr. Houston said to him that, as a member of Parliament. iic could not make a profit on the war, and he gave the witness £2OOO as a present, saying he saw no reason why the witness should suffer on that account. He induced the witness to sign a document assigning all his interest in commission and renumeration in respect of the war business to him in consideration of that £2OOO, and five weeks after that assignment the £IOB,000 commission was brought into the firm’s accounts, and credited to Mr. Houston personally. The plaintiff was examined at length by Mr. Rufus Isaacs for the defence. A letter of 1902 was read from Mr. Collard to Mr. Houston, containing an ..r!mission of his share of remuneration having been temporarily reduced. He! said lie bad no recollection of the letter. Other letters of - laintiff were read with a view to negative the allegation that he signed the accounts of ■ 1901 under fraudulent misrepresentation. These accounts showed the following distribution of-profit:— .. First half-vear—June 30, 1901—profit £52,039, divided thus: R. P. Houston £50,465; A. S. Collard, £1627. Second half-year—December 31 —R. P. Houston £85,328; A. S. Ccllard, £2752. Mr. Isaacs: Do you not withdraw the statement that you were fraudulently induced to sign these papers? The Plaintiff: Yes. And I suppose I may add. express regret jit having made it? —Yes. In further cross-examination the plaintiff admitted .that- the books and accounts for 1902 appeared to be correct, and there was no fraud in connection with them. Mr. Isaacs: Do you adhere to the charge of conspiracy to defraud?'

Mr. Collard: By reason of the entries' in the books—Yes. Mr. Isaacs said he understood that plaintiff had on the previous day withdrawn the charge of fraud.

Mr. Collard stated that his f charge of conspiracy was based on the report of the accountant wild had examined the partnership books, and also on his own knowledge. He did not suggest that the partnership account-book was kept open for the purpose of defrauding him. Mr. Harley, solicitor, said he advised Mr. Houston he could not. being an M.P.. accept Boor war commissions. It was Mr. Houston himself who suggested after Parliament was dissolved lie could then take commissions.