EXTRADITION OPPOSED

Ashburton Guardian, Volume 56, Issue 16, 31 October 1935, Page 5

EXTRADITION OPPOSED

MCARTHUR PROSPECTUS CASE.

POLITICAL MOTIVES SUGGESTED,

(United Press Association—Capyright) SYDNEY, October 30.

When the case against J. W. S. McArthur was resumed in the Police Court to-day, Mr Windeyer, K.C., counsel for McArthur, asked Detective Robinson, from New Zealand, whether it was not a fact that the prosecution had been initiated by the New Zealand Government. Detective Robinson said it was.

Mr Windeyer: Db you know when the elections are being held in New Zealand?

Detective Robinson: Either next month or in December.

Mr Windeyer: Have you any knowledge whether the relationship of this company with the members of the Government is a political issue in New Zealand ? .; i Detective Robinson: No, I have not. Mr Windeyer: Do you know that three Acts of Parliament have been passed dealing with McArthur’s affairs ?

Detective Robinson: I believe so. Detective Robinson then answered a series of questions relating to the investment trust companies which were the subject of investigation some time ago, after which Mr Windeyer sought a remand for three weeks to enable him .to take proceedings in New Zealand, in order to try to obtain possession of certain documents. He argued that there could be no hurry, as the case had already hung fire in New Zealand for a long time. * . He added that it was a grave matter to remove a man nearly 2000 miles without a trial. Mr Barry, of the Grow'n Prosecutor’s Department, opposed a further remand, and asked for an extradition order. He said it had been intended to take McArthur back to New Zealand: by the boat on Saturday. » 1 The Magistrate (Mr Williams) agreed to a remand until Friday at noon. Bail was fixed at £250. Mr 'Windeyer said he intended ,to approach the Supreme Court during the interval.

A message last Friday stated: The allegation that he induced people to advance money to the Investment Executive Trust Company of New Zealand by means of a false prospectus, which he had issued in New Zealand in 1933, was made against S, W. S. McArthur at the Police Court to-day. It was alleged that the prospectus had stated that the Investment Executive Trust adopted the policy of diversification or spreading capital over a large number of sound investments. This statement had concealed the true nature of the company’s investments and McArthur, knowing the prospectus to be false, had indicated intent thereby to induce persons to advance money to the Investment Executive Trust.