SHARE-HAWKING CHARGE

Evening Star, Issue 22577, 19 February 1937, Page 3

SHARE-HAWKING CHARGE

DEFENCE BASED ON HOUSE-TO-HOUSE PROVISO [Per United Press Association.] CHRISTCHURCH, February 18. The trial of Osmond Arthur Bridgewater on 11 charges of “ share-hawk-ing ” was continued! in the Supreme Court this afternoon. In each case the text of the charge was that he went from house to house offering for subscription or purchase to the members of the public shares in the Australasian Investment Corporation Ltd. Mr Justice Northcroft presided, and the prosecutor was Mr R. W. Lascelles, the accused being represented by Mr H. F. O’Leary, K.C., of Wellington, and with him Mr D. W. Russell. Edith Marcy Chapman, a married woman, said she bought Investment Executive Trust debentures in. 1934. Bridgewater called on her unexpectedly in 1935 and asked her to transfer to the Australasian Company, but witness refused to make the transfer. Cecelia Eugenie Anderson, a married woman, described her dealings with Bridgewater, as a result of which she transferred £2,210 worth of debentures of the Investment Executive Trust, receiving an equivalent amount of shares in the Australasian Investment Corporation in exchange. To' Mr O’Leary witness said she thought she remembered receiving a letter from Bridgewater, in which he said he would call on her. Similar evidence was given by Elizabeth Ann Morton, Robert Isaac Peters, William Gilmour Bruce (Ashburton), James M‘lntyre Russell, Ralph Trevor Buchanan Jekyll, Ivy Steele Robson, and William Neeve. At the conclusion of the evidence submissions were made to His Honour by counsel on the legal aspect of the allegations. For the defence Mr O’Leary submitted that the actions of Bridgewater, which were admitted, did not constitute a house-to-house canvass in the sense in which the term was generally understood. He contended that there was nothing in the reading of the Statute which limited the meaning of the term to any particular type of canvass. So far as offering shares to the public was concerned, he submitted that the shares were not offered to the general public, but to a selected group of persons—namely, people who owned debentures in a particular company and who had had l previous business dealings with the accused. In 'he present case persons had been selected at 11 different points in the city and Ashburton, and in no sense could this be construed as going from house to house. For the Crown Mr Lascelles contended that nothing could be more natural than for a canvasser to select the people upon whom he would call in what was generally called a house-to-house canvass. He submitted that the terra did not necessarily mean going from door to door, and that some element of selection was necessary. He said that the persons selected by Bridgewater were none the less members of the public; otherwise it would be open for a man to “ take down ” all his friends and acquaintances, because they would not be regarded strictly as members pf the outside public. The case was adjourned until tomorrow morning, when counsel will address the jury.