DISPUTED AMOUNT

Evening Post, Volume CXVIII, Issue 74, 25 September 1934, Page 9

DISPUTED AMOUNT

DEBT OR COMMISSION?

TRUST COMPANIES, INQUIRY

M CINXES'S POSITION

United Press Association—By Electric Tele-

graph—Copyright,

SYDNEY, September 24

When the Eoyal Commission which is inquiring into the activities of trust and other companies, resumed its hearing of evidence in public, after a discussion of the value of the Trust Building in Chambers, H. C. Glasson, secret tary of the Investment Executive Trust of New Zealand, Lfd., was recalled.

Mr. Monahan (who is assisting the Commissioner, Mr. . Justice Halse Rogers): How much, right up to date, has Mclnnes in hand that should have been .handed over to you? It appears in my balance-sheet at £4300 on June 30. ' •; Glasson: He would be about £200 further in debt. Mr. Monahan: He sold your property and kept the money, didn't he? He either collected cash or scrip from customers. ' • • ■ . Glasson: Early last year he -was doing that. The Commissioner: I suppose when lie collected scrip he handed it into the company and when he collected cash it went into the bank? .

Mr. Monahan: I do no£ think he was as clear in his dealings as that.

Glasson said that in somo cases Me Innes sold shares.

The Commissioner: He must have taken open transfer. , ' , .

Glasson said . that he did not deliberately let Mclnnes get into the debt of his (witness's) company. The company had issued debentures in respect of all the' applications it received. He knew Mclnnes was selling shares received as against the debentures.,

SCRIP TO NEW ZEALAND,

Mr. Monahan: He has been sending scrip to New Zealand, hasn't he? Glasson: There was one ■' case; I think it concerned some Australian Provincial Assurance shares. ..; , .

Mr. Monahan: Prior to the commencement of the Commission had you the faintest idea of Mclnnes's position? Glasson: Yes. . , Mr. Monahan: How long had this been; going.on? , -.'....■ .

Glasson: Practically from the commencement of the business.

Mr. Monahan: Had he been remonstrated with? ■ . , .■ .

Glasson: Yes. Me Arthur mentioned tlie matter several times and also wrote to him making a strong requpst to pay all moneys in. > • < ' .■ " ,

.. Mr. Monahau': ils iff not dishonest to retain the money of a'-principal?

■Glasson: He was: not actually dishonest, but the system could have been improved. • ■ v .

■Mr. Monahan: Tou won't say dishonest, yet ho has, got into your company to the tune o,f practically £5000. . Glasson: Well, it was not right. Dr. Louat (for the British National Trust, Ltd., British National Investment Trust, Ltd., and Sterling Invcstmonts Co. of New Zealand) objected to the form of questioning, and the Commissioner, interposed: "When small sums aro taken it is called embezzlement, but larger sums sometimes come under a different name." •

Dr. Louat: The position is different when people "promise to pay back. Mr. Monahan: I have rheard people say they would have paid money back if their, horse had won. ' .

.Kcplyirig to1 Mr.. Monanan, ' Glasson said that Mclnnes was still the company's agent. ■ .

QUESTIONED BY COUNSEL. '.Mr: McGhie (for Melnnes and Co.) drew attention to the dispute between Glassoni's company and Mclnnes • arid Co. as to whether money was owing by Mclnnes and Co. He asked Glasson: '' Do you. know that, the accounts having been made up, the £4<JOO is not owing by Mclnnes and Co.?" Glasson: No; I'think it is still.owing. .Mr.. MeGhic: •Mclnnes and Co; had authority to deduct from cash subscriptions their commission and return you the difference? '.'.-.

Glasson: I do not know that,

Mr. McGhie: Melnnes would send in an application for debentures. Y.ou would then send the debentures to the people and a weekly'statement by McInnes and Co. would then show how much-money that. firm, had in hand on your behalf. . . ' ,■.•..;

Glasson: Yes,

Mr. Monahan here snowed Glasson, a ledger and asked him about a sum appearing therei 'At ■.Mr. 'Monahari's request witness read: "£4300 being'the value of stocks sold as scheduled'and the proceeds retained by. Mclnnes and Co "

Mr. Monahan: That is a. case -rt-here he sold. £4300 worth of property/and kept tire lot? ' . . Mr.McGhie: On this man's evidence it is on account of commission.

The Commissioner: It is not shown as on account of commission. ' Mr. McGhie (to'Glasson): Has your company ever- paid Mclpnes and Co. an actual cheque for commission? Glasson: Not while11 had been there.

Mr. Monahan: It was never with your concurrence as secretary that he retained £4300?

Glasson: Certainly; never with the company's concurrence. . Mr. Monahan: Up to June 30 he had had all he was entitled to?

Glasson: Yes; I considered he had. The Commissioner said that he would obtain statements,from both sides.

V. B. Mclnnes was then recalled.

Mr. Monahan: Your company has retained "£4300 up to the end of June that it is not entitled to receive.

Mclnnes: That amount is disputed. Mr. Monahan: To what extent? Mclnnes: About £5000. Mr. Monahan:'Then they owed you money? ,

Mclnnes: Yes.

The Commissioner:' How did they owe you £5000? Mclnnes: We paid out considerable moneys on behalf of the Trust for capital adjustments with clients. The hearing was adjourned till tomorrow. ■ '