VICTOR BRAUND'S LITIGATION.

Evening Star, Issue 12875, 26 July 1906, Page 7

VICTOR BRA UND'S LITIGATION.

ANOTHER UNaUCCJiiSSFUL APPEAL. [Special to the Star.] V WELLINGTON, July 26. Tho motion for the reversal of the Chief N Justice’s decision to change th© venue of th© Colonial Bonk cas© to Dunedin was easily lost" yesterday by Mr Braund. H© had, however, a spicy halfhour for his money, as the following extracts from the report-will show : Mr Braund objected that there was small chance of his getting a. fair trial in Dunedin. There , were too many people there interested in the late bank. The Chief Justice, said there were only thirteen shareholders of the bank on the special jury list at Dunedin ’out of 250 citizens who comprised the list. Mr Braund replied that in the _ district there were 565 shareholders residing. If there was a determination in the minds of all these men to save the directors from their wrong-doing, those 665 shareholders would make very able officers. He asked the Court to assume that would be so. His Honor did not know that he would do that. He was being asked to assume that all this large number of .citizens would behave unlawfully. Mr Braund : it is a fact that they are ill-disposed towards me. Proof is to be seen in the fact that in some previous proceedings I received considerable financial sunnort from shareholders all over New Zealand, but nothing in the way of financial support had come from Dunedin. His Honor ; I don’t know that that is any indication of their feelings towards you. You must remember their race. Mr Braund replied that only seven shareholders were included in the Wellington list. He would not have a chance of getting a fair trial in Dunedin. He had obtained further proof of • that during a recent visit to Dunedin, A point had been made in the affidavit filed on behalf of the defendants that there had been delay in bringing these proceedings, but it was a fact that in order to succeed in this action he had to show loss, and that loss was not defined until 1905. His Honor: The loss was known long before 1905.

Mr Braund said it yvas not. until the 2nd May, 1905, that the company were dissolved, and the liquidator became functus officio.. The delay had in fact been brought about by the defendants in order that they might use th© delay as a defence. His Honor: In your own claim you admit that yon have delayed since the month of February, 1905. Mr Braund renlied that he had explained in his affidavit that he had not had the means to carrv these proceedings through. The Supreme Court Judges seemed to have got the idea that h© had come into court to deprive the members of the legal profession of their proper dues. '

His Honor; I don’t think this is necessary at all. Mr Braund : It is absolutely necessary, I should say. , Comments have been made bv Mr Justice Cooper. Mr Justice Edwards. Mr Justice Denniston, and by your Honor in Chambers. His Honor: It Was simply an old axiom, which interpreted means : “ Equity and law aid the vigilant, not those who are asleep.” You slept on your rights; that is all it is.

Mr Braund renlied that there was the financial aspect. His Honor said that th© action could have been commenced for ss. Mr Braund replied that tn have carried it on would have been a different matter. One counsel bad asked for £I,OOO before he would consent to take the case up.

His Honor: Perhaps because he did next want it. Mr Brannd agreed that that was likely. He might say. as Mr Tavlor had said in Christchurch, that he had too much re snect for the legal profession to want to put such a dirty case in their hands. After some further discussion had taken place, His Honor said that plaintiff seemed to assume that he should not onlv conduct his case himself, but that all the Judges should set aside the law because plaintiff did not knovrits provisions. Mr Brannd said ho only asked for some concessions. His Honor pointed out that plaintiff had had many concessions made to him that no lawyer would have received. Plaintiff said he would far sooner have his case brought in Wellington, even if production of the bank’s books, which were really essential .'to his case, had to he foregone. It would be wiser for him to abandon bis case at once rather than go to Dunedin and .spend money on a hopeless quest for justice. He had been to Dunedin lately, and the general oninion there was “ he had not got a chance.” The influence of the defendants was too great. He asked consideration of the uosition taken up !)"• the Hon. George M ‘Lean, who was made first defendant in this case: notwithstanding this, he put forward Mr Neill, and even that gentleman did not make the affidavit, hut left a solicitor to do so. To this affidavit Mr MTean simply said : “ T agree.” Of course he agreed. The Hon. George MHoan would agree to anything. The Chief Justice : He doesn’t seem to agree with you. g Mr Braund submitted a further ground for keening the hearing in Wellington—that the balance-sheet was issued to him in Wellington. It had_ been said that he was bringing this .action for the purpose of dealing with frir Joseph Ward’s affairs, but that was not so. _ He was simolv claiming for moneys which he said were due to him and to others interested with him, and the books were necessary to his case. The importance of Sir Joseph Ward in the case was that he had exceptional experience, and was in an exceptional position to _ give important evidence as to the working of the company’s accounts. His Honor, in giving, judgment, said he had heard nothing to show that his decision in Chambers was wrong. It had been shown that the main causes of_ action took place where defendants resided fin Dunedin), and it was therefore -right, under the practice of the New Zealand courts, that the trial should be made there. If he had come to the decision that the jury there were likely to be influenced by what had happened in the past, or were likely to be false to their oath, he would not have changed the venue; but that he did not believe. It would be a very poor compliment to those men to think that thev would be false to their oaths for anv man’s benefit, and His Honor gave his judgment' in full belief ir their integrity. The charge against the directors was that thev knowinglv made a false statements Thev could onlv have rot their information from the books of the bank, which were in Dunedin, for it was not suggested that they went around to the various branches and there inspected the books, and it would be exceedingly inconvenient if an order were made to produce the book’s in Wellington. The Court bad uo power to enforce obedience to a subooena when a distance of over 200 miles was concerned. The only wav in which it could he made sure that the books would be produced was to order the trial The balance of evidence was entirely in favor of the trial being at Dunedin. There were witnesses in Dunedin and Wellington, and one lot could be set off against the other. The most witnesses were in Dunedin, as well as the books, and therefore the trial should take n]ac© there. That was a ■procedure that had been followed in similar cases that had before the Court 1 For the reasons given he was of opinion that the order mad* in-Chambers was a correct order, and therefore he could not vary it. Costs (P-* 5s each) would bo allowed to, the two defendants represented in court.