M'ARTHUR CASE REPERCUSSIONS

Evening Star, Issue 22629, 22 April 1937, Page 17

M'ARTHUR CASE REPERCUSSIONS

TRANSFERS TO CHRISTCHURCH COMPANY RETUaH 0? SHARES CLAIMED [Ter United Press Association.] CHRISTCHURCH, April 21. The first of a series of IS claims against the Australasian Investment Corporation Ltd., a Christchurch company, was brought in the Supreme Court to-day before Mr Justice Kennedy. The claims are based on share transfers involving £14,420. This is the second such series of claims within five months. The claims arise from the transfer of shares in the Investment Executive Trust Company of New Zealand Ltd.—one of the J. W. S. M'Arthur companies—and concern shares* of a nominal value of £14,420, which were transferred to .the Australasian Investment Corporation. _ The, plaintiff in 'he first claim is George Herbert Elliott, a retired art master, of Palmerston North, who claimed the return of shares of a nominal value of £6OO, which he had transferred from the Investment Executive Trust to the Australasian Investment Corporation. He also claimed £240 in dividends on those shares, which was received by the defendant company from the Public Trustee, and £6O which was paid in cash at the time of the transfer. The plaintiff was represented by Air R. A. Young, with him Air K. J. M'Alenamin, and the defendant company by Mr H. F. O’Leary, K.C., and with him Air R. E. Tripe. In the statement of claim, the plaintiff set out that he was originally the holder of debentures of a nominal value of £6OO in the Investment Executive Trust Company of New Zealand Ltd., the assets of which had been vested by Act of Parliament in the Public Trustee in Alay, 1936. The plaintiff had agreed to transfer to the defendant company his debentures, together with £6O in cash, for the isr-ic to him of £6OO worth of shares in the Australasian Investment Corporation. This transfer, the statement continued, had been made on the representations of Osmond Arthur Bridgewater, managing director of the corporation. In persuading him to transfer. Bridgewater had said: (1) That no commission would bo charged for the transfer; (2) that he (Bridgewater' had himself possessed a large holding In the Investment Executive Trust and had transferred to the defendant company; and (3) that neither J. W. S. M'Arthur, nor_ any person or firm or company associated with him was in any way connected or associated vWth Australasian Investment Corporation. Since making the transfer on those assurances, the plaintiff said lie had discovered(l) That commission had been charged, of at least 5 per cent., by Bridgewater or the company controlled by him; (2) that at the time of the transfer of the plaintiff's shares Bridgewater was the holder of only one share in the defendant company and had not at any time before been the holder of other shares; and (3) that J. \V. S. M'Arthur, and certain companies and committees under his had been actively associated with Bridgewater and the defendant company. The evidence for the plaintiff was concluded to-day, and Air O’J. ca.iv’s opening address was interrupted by the adjournment of the couit until to-morrow.