McARTHUR CASE

Auckland Star, Volume LXXII, Issue 281, 27 November 1941, Page 17

McARTHUR CASE

CONSPIRACY CHARGE

FOUR MEN TO STAND TRIAL

SYDNEY, November 25

On a charge of conspiracy John William Shaw McArthur (40), manager, Arthur Bridgewater (36), director, William Bryce (40), director. ar.d Arnold Lovel (49), salesman, were committed for trial at the Sycinej* Police Court last Friday.

The hearing of the case occupied several days, witnesses stating in evidence that they had given money or securities to the defendants in exchange for shares in a chain storegrocery co-operative company, which they were later told had been wound up.

"There is not the slightest evidence of false pretence against McArthur," said Mr. W. Shand, at the conclusion i>f the Crown case. "Mr. Rooney, at the opening of the case, said that the only evidence against McArthur would be given by Mr. Gulliver, and there is not one statement in Mr. Gulliver's evidence of misrepresentation of fact. Gulliver says he has known McArthur for five years, and has not known him to tell a lie."

Mr. Shand added that the co-opera-tive scheme was an excellent one. In 1940 a system of co-operatiVe shops was evolved, each shop being a society. They were to get monej' by selling 10/ shares in the society. At the same time, they would get customers by selling to the shareholders. The intention was to buy more shops, and so extend the scheme to chain co-operative stores. At the back, there was a co-operative wholesale company, whose function was to supply the shops.

Why it failed was that on December 15 it was laid down that no company could raise capital without the permission of the Federal Treasurer, continued Mr. Shand. "It is a wicked thing when a man is brought here on a charge of conspiracy like this, and no evidence whatever is offered against him. The Crown could not give one fact of misrepresentation. Mr. Langsworth has dealt with Mr. McArthur over a number of years in transactions of about £20.000, and knows nothing whatever against him."

Mr. Snand also contended that there was no evidence against Bridgewater.

Mr. Lynn, for Lovel, declared that there was no evidence of any conspiracy on the part of Lovel. "It is admitted by the Crown that Lovel was only employed as a salesman." he said. "Mr. Roonev made the admission that he had no evidence that Lovel was other than a salesman."