EXPLAINED TO JUDGE

Dominion, Volume 28, Issue 284, 28 August 1935, Page 9

EXPLAINED TO JUDGE

Sending of Cable From

New Zealand

Sydney, August 27. Further reference to Mr. H. P. Richmond’s cablegram to Mr. Justice LongInnes’s associate concerning the proposed sale of the Trust Building whs made in the Equity Court to-day. Mr. David Maughan, K.C., who is not appearing for any party in the case, informed the judge that apparently Mr. Richmond had selected him to convey the explanatory cablegram as he knew him personally. Mr. Richmond, in expressing his regret, explained that the cablegram was sent in his absence as the result of a misunderstanding arising out of a long-distance telephone conversation between himself and his office. In this conversation, on instructions from debenture-holders, he had authorised the sending of a cablegram to Sydney solicitors or counsel. Mr. Maughan explained that Mr. Richmond, who was a man of high standing and imbued with the highest traditions of his profession, deeply regretted the incident. . Mr. Justice Long-Innes said he was sorry if the publicity given his remarks yesterday had caused Mr. Richmond any distress.

A cable received yesterday atuled tkit when the sale of the Trust Building was mentioned in the Equity Court at Sydney on Monday Mr. Justice Long-Innes read what he described as “a moist extraordinary cablegram” which he had received from New Zealand. The cablegram read: “Ke the applica tion concerning the Trust Building, formerly the property of the McArthur companies. the New Zealand debenture-hold-ers desire an opportunity to be heard. They are agrinet «ale at a low valuation. (Signed) Richmond, counsel for the New Zealand debenture-holders’ committee.” Mr. Justice Long-Innee aaid that if Mr. Richmond were a barrister "and had signed the cable he had been guilty of gross impropriety in addressing a judge on matters of this sort. Dr. Louat, who said he appeared for the McArthur Trust and had received no instructions from New Zealand, stated i hat he understood the New Zealand de-benture-holders’ committee represented several thousand people. He understood that they intended to oppose the sale of the building. His Honour: This is an improper way of opposing it. It is, of course, contempt of court. I can’t do anything to them, as they are out of my jurisdiction. His Honour expressed the opinion that the New Zealand debenture-holders should brief counsel.