SHARE TRANSACTIONS

Evening Post, Volume CXXIII, Issue 48, 26 February 1937, Page 6

SHARE TRANSACTIONS

AGENT'S APPEAL-

ALLEGED BREACH OF ACT

(By Tefcerapli—Press Association.)

INVERCARGILL, February 25. In the SSupreme Court today, before I Mr. Justice Kennedy, Harold Calvert appealed from a conviction by a Stipendiary Magistrate at Invercargill, Calvert having been fined £200 on a I charge brought by John Albert Colin Mackenzie, tof offering shares for sub- } scription. Tfte appellant (Calvert) Was j represented 'by Mr. P. B. Cooke, K.C. (Wellington)!, and Mr. G. V. Murdoch (Dunedin). Mr;. H. J. Macalister appeared for the respondent Mackenzie Mr. Macalister said the case was an appeal from a conviction entered by a Magistrate ageinst the appellant on a charge under (section 343 of the Companies Act, of having committed a breach of the Act. The offence charged that the'defendant: went from house to house offering \ shares for subscription to the public. \ The information was laid by Mackenzie, executor of the estate of the late rw. Fleck. The defendant was employed by a company known as McAr.thur Trust, Ltd., and induced Fleck anil his wife to take up 'debentures in th& Investment Executive Trust, Ltd. Legislation was passed by which certain 'companies in which J. W. S. McArthur 'was interested were ordered to be wound up, the Public Trustee being appointed liquidator. McArthur Trust, Ltid.,t was registered in Queensland, and. aglents were appointed to endeavour to :get control of the debenture-holders' ■ '. interests. The methods were simple: Debenture holders were canvassed ;and endeavours made to persuade tntem to part with their debentures in ! the Investment Executive Trust in exchange for shares in .the McArthur Trust, the debenture holders being ofTerbct more than the face value of the shades. The defendant was one of the, (agents in the campaign, and was largely successful in inducing debenture, holders to exchange their debentures for shares in the McArthur Trust. Hte visited houses in doing so, and thus committed a breach of. section 243. ' ■. . GROUNDS OF iATPEAL. After several witnesses had been heard, Mr. Cooke, addressing the Court, submitted that there were four grounds on which the prosecution could not hope to succeed. They ware: (1) There was no evidence of a house-to-house canvass; (2) there was no evidence of any offer; (3) there was no evidence of any offering of shares tfor subscription; (4) there was no evidence of any offer to the public. On the weight of the evidence produced, he submitted thatit was insufficient to shiow that the prosecution had discharged': the onus which rested on it." The going by Calvert to a total of seven houses constituted according to the prosecution going from house to house. TJsese houses, said counsel, .were hundreidis of miles apart. Calvert had waited! on the debenture holders with whom he had transacted share-business on a number of occasions, yet the prosecution would have, the Court believe that that was a house-to-house can\jass. He' based his submissions on thei ordinary meaning of the term. Callingion every alternate house would amount to a house-to-house canvass, but aiot the waiting on seven or eight parsons in an area hundreds of miles in eixtent. It was a well-known;fact'that-the section under which Calvert was charged had given rise to .a. great deal of difficulty, and;there had beeh : a good dealjof comment about:it; :'l ;\, ; :.: ' "-■■ j•■ ■ : The hearing was adjourned • fall ■ tomorrow. '• .;■;.'■' '::.- ..,'■ ,",■ ■ :■ '{ ■"' "■