COMPANY INQUIRY.

Auckland Star, Volume LXV, Issue 90, 17 April 1934, Page 13

COMPANY INQUIRY.

FULL COURT HEARING. ACTION FOR INJUNCTION. QUESTIONS FOR DEFENDANTS. (By Telegraph.—Press Association.) WELLINGTON, Monday. The Full Court to-day considered an important preliminary question arising in the action to prevent the Company Commission proceeding. The question involved the admissibility of certain interrogatories which plaintiffs wished to put to two of the defendants, namely, Professor H. BelsJiaw and Mr. Frank Graham. Plaintiffs in the action are Timberlands Woodpulp, Ltd., Maurice Vincent Bates, Auckland, licensed sharebroker and member of the Stock Exchange, and Tung Oil Securities (N.Z.), Ltd. Defendants are the AttorneyGeneral and Mr. J. S. Barton, of Wellington, stipendiary magistrate, Professor H. Belshaw, of Auckland, and Mr. F. E. Graham, of Christchurch, share'broker. Mr. Barton, Professor Belsliaw and Mr. Graham are members of the commission.

Messrs. D. K. Richmond and M. H. •Hampson (Auckland) appeared in support of the summons for leave to issue interrogatories, and Mr. J. B. Callan, K.C., with Mr. Rose, appeared to oppose it. ,

Mr. Richmond submitted that relevancy of the proposed questions depended on whether the Royal Commission was a judicial tribunal or not. He submitted that it was, for the reason that writs'pf prohibition had heen issued against such commissions, in the past, and such writs could by law only be issued against judicial bodies.

Mr. Callan agreed that for the purpose of to-day's argument the commission should be regarded as a judicial tribunal.

Mr. Richmond then stated that plaintiffs alleged that by reason of bias and pre-determination of thought, Professor Belshaw was not a proper person to act on the commission. Mr. Graham, as. ex-president of the Christchurch Stock Exchange, was financially interested in matters to be determined by the commission and was also not a proper person to be appointed. Mr. Callan stated that defendants objected to questions asked in the interrogatories because running through them there was an attempt to find out the names of particular companies to which Professor Belshaw had referred under general headings in his writings. Similarly questions put to Mr. Graham sought to establish that he had been hostile to a certain investment trust company.

Mr. Callan submitted that interrogatories should not be used for the purpose of clearing the commercial character of certain companies. The Court proceeded to deal with the interrogatories individually, and, with the exception of a( few which were agreed to by both parties, they were deleted either by consent or by the Court as being oppressive.