COMPANIES COMMISSION

Greymouth Evening Star, 18 April 1934, Page 11

COMPANIES COMMISSION

APPOINTMENT OPPOSED. [PJCB PBESS ASSOCIATION.] WELLINGTON, April 18. The Full Court commenced hearing what has come to be known throughout the Dominion as the “company commission case.” Plaintiffs, the Timberlands Woodpulp Ltd., Maurice Vincent Bates, and Tung Oil Securities (New Zealand) Ltd., in the statement of claim, detail the appointment of Commissioners John Saxon Barton, Horace Belshaw, and Frank Edward Graham, by the Governor-General, acting under the powers conferred by the Commissions of Enquiry Act, 1908. They describe the plaintiff company, Timberlands Woodpulp Ltd., to be a company incorporated in New South Wales, having its principal place of business in New Zealand at Auckland, Maurice Vincent Bates to be a public accountant, and licensed sharebroker of Auckland, and member and secretary of the Stock Exchange Corporation of New Zealand, and Tung Oil Securities Ltd. as a New Zealand Company having its registered office at Auckland. They allege that at the date of the appointment of the Commission no legislation had been proposed or contemplated by the Government in respect of matters set out in the appointment of the Commission, and that consequently the Governor-General had no power, or authority, under the Act to issue the Commission. The appointment of Professor Belshaw is objected to on the grounds that he has in the course of statements publicly made in writing, prioi] to the date of the Commission, shown bias or pre-judg-ment in his criticisms- concerning the promotion, financial methods, control and operation of the Companies and other corporations which seek to raise capital in this country. The defendant, Francis Edward Graham, is alleged to have a pecuniary interest in the operation of the present statute governing stock exchanges in New Zealand and is likely to be biased against the Stock Exchange Corporation of New Zealand, because he is a member and shareholdei’ of the Christchurch Stock Exchange, and for many years until February, 1934, was’ the President and a director thereof. For these reasons, the defendants, Belshaw and Graham, are said to be not fit and proper persons fo act, and 1 the prayer is made that the Commissioners appointed or alternatively one or both of the defendants, Belshaw and Graham, may be prohibited by writ from inquiring into, taking evidence, or reporting upon the matters set out in the Commission, in support of the allegations so contained in the statement of claim. Various affidavits have been filed dealing with the alleged pre-judg-ment or bias of two Commissioners, and the absence of any intention on the part of the Government to introduce legislation dealing with matters to be considered by the Commissioners.

Defendants, by a statement of defence, deny the allegations of the plaintiffs concerning the lack of intention on the part of the Government to introduce the legislation in question, and whilst admitting that Professor Belshaw has published articles dealing with matters stated, deny that he has shown bias or pre-judgment. They admit furthermore Graham’s connection with the Christchurch Stock Exchange but deny the other allegations made against him. Affirmatively they contend the Commission was validly constituted, and consequently has full power and authority to act. In addition to the affidavits filed by Belshaw and Graham defining their positions in an affidavit has been made by Mr J. G. Coates, stating that the matters to be considered by lite Commissioners had been receiving the attention of the Government for some time, and that it was intended suitable provisions dealing with the evils thought to exist should be incorporated in the Companies’ Act of last year. This was not done, as it was considered the form of the proposed provisions would depend upon the detailed examination of the structure and methods of companies, then under review, and it was decided to defer the introduction of the proposed legislation, the matter nevertheless being kept actively in view. Mr Richmond and Mr Hampston (Auckland), are appearing for the plaintiffs, and Mr Callan and Mr Rose (Wellington), for the Commissioners. The case is proceeding.