TRUST DEBENTURES

Evening Post, Volume CXXII, Issue 138, 8 December 1936, Page 5

TRUST DEBENTURES

PRINTER'S CLAIM

CANCELLATION OF TRANSFER

SOUGHT

(By Talegrai'li—l Jrcss Association.) CHRISTCHURCH, December 7. The hearing of the petition of George Ernest Argyle, printer, of Ashburton, for the return of debentures in the ■Investment Executive Trust to the value Of £170 -was continued in the Supreme Court this' afternoon before Mr. Justice Northcroft.-■ The plaintiff alleged.that he transferred the debentures in. consideration of debentures to the same nominal value in the Australian Investment Corporation, which company was the defendant in the action. The plaintiff's claim stated that he had been induced to make the transfer by the misrepresentations of Osmond Arthur Bridgewater and of William Munro, admitted agents of the defendant company. : , Mr. Young," counsel for the plaintiff, continuing his opening, said that ths annual meeting of the Australian Investment Corporation had been held some months ago. The balance-sheet revealed that Bridgewater or his promoting company, O. A. Bridgewater and Co., Ltd.; received £1000 for establishment costs and over £4000 in commission, this being later deducted from the money which had come from the public by way of dividend from the liquidated companies. By securing the transfer of, debentures in the Investment Executive Trust, the corporation had received about £27,000 in ths distribution by the Public Trustee. The balance-sheet also showed that £3250 had been invested in the Investment Development Corporation of New Zealand, Ltd:, a company which had been formed at Wellington on June 5, 1936. Shares in this company were also held by the McArthur Trust, formed by J. W. S. McArthur in Queensland, where no legislation similar to that of New Zealand and New South Wales had yet been enacted. The first proof of a definite connection between Bridgewater and McArthur, counsel continued, was obtained on July 15, 1936, when their names were entered with the Registrar of | Companies, Wellington, as directors of the Investment Development Corporation. ' The representations complained of had been made to the plaintiff by Bridgewater in August, 1935, said counsel. The plaintiff believed that Bridgewater was a loser through the McArthur transactions/The transfer was effected, and it was- not until the following April \vhen>he found.that another debenture-holder who had not transferred,his holding had received a dividend from the Public Trustee that his suspicions were first aroused. The plaintiff's claim was for the cancellation of the1 contract between the plaintiff and the defendant company for the transfer of the debentures and for the return of the debentures. Evidence on the lines indicated by counsel was given by the plaintiff, who said that after he consulted, his solicitor with a -view to recovering the shares he was interviewed by Bridgewater. Bridgewater represented to him that the solicitor. Mr. Young, had: lost interest in the case, and that seve-j ral other persons who had consulted, Mr. Young had since withdrawn thej matter from his hands. | The case is part heard. . j