SHARE-HAWKING CHARGES

Evening Star, Issue 22576, 18 February 1937, Page 10

SHARE-HAWKING CHARGES

ELEVEN COUNTS AGAINST ACCUSED ANOTHER LINK WITH INVESTMENT EXECUTIVE TRUST [Per United Press Association.] CHRISTCHURCH, February 18. The trial of Osmond' Arthur Bridgewater on 11 charges of “ share-hawk-ing ” commenced in the Supreme Court this morning. In each caso the text of the charge was that he went from house to house offering for subscription or purchase to the members of public shares in the Australasian Investment Corporation Ltd*. Mr Justice Northcroft presided, and the prosecutor was Mr R. W. Lasoelles, accused being represented by Mr H. F. O’Leary, K.C., of Wellington, and (with him) Mr D. W. Russell. Mr Lascelles directed the attention of the jury to that section of the Companies Act, 1933, under which the charges were laid. It read: “It shall not be lawful for any person to go from house to house offering shares for subscription or purchase to the public or any member of the public.” That, said Mr Lascelles. did not apply to places of business, or to shares in dairy co-operative companies, and shares of other co-operative concerns. All the people visited by Bridgewater, he continued, had previously acquired debentures in the Investment Executive Trust of New Zealand Ltd, There was a link between that company and the Australasian InvestmentCorporation disclosed in the prospectus of the Australasian Investment Corporation Company, in which accused was interested. That company had, as one of its objects, the acquisition of the debentures of the Investment Executive Trust of New Zealand Ltd.

It might be submitted, said Mr Lascelles, that “ house-to-house ” had _ a limited meaning, and would be applicable only in such a case as that of a hawker, who would actually go from house to house right along a street. The Crown maintained that no such narrow interpretation could be placed upon the wording of the Act. it was maintained that accused, in visiting one of two people a day, as he did, at their homes was guilty of going from house to house offering shares < for subscription or purchase. In fairness, it had to be said that the accused had had previous business dealings with the people concerned. John Harrison _ Campbell, retired grocer, said In evidence that he had bought some £lO debentures in the Investment Executive Trust, the transaction being completed in Bridgewater’s office. In July accused visited witness’s house at Cashmere View street, and induced him to transfer his interest in the. Investment Executive Trust for shares in the Australasian Investment Corporation. Witness had not asked Bridgewater to call upon him. He used the premises at Cashmere View street purely as a dwellinghouse,