COMPANY COMMISSION

Greymouth Evening Star, 18 April 1934, Page 12

COMPANY COMMISSION

PRELIMINARY ARGUMENT. [FEB PBESS ASSOCIATION.] WELLINGTON, April 16. The frail Court to-day considered an important preliminary question, arising in the action to prevent the I Company Commission from proceeding. The question involved the admissibility of certain interrogatories which the plaintiff wished to put to two of the defendants, namely Professor H. Belshaw (Auckland),- and F. E. Graham (Christchurch). The plaintiffs in the action are the Timberlands Woodpulp, Ltd.; Maurice Vincent Bates, of Auckland, licensed sharebroker and member of the Stock Exchange; and the Tung Oil Securities (N.Z.), Ltd. The defendants are the Attorney-General, and Mr J. S. Barton, of Wellington, Stipendiary Magistrate; Professor H. Belshaw, of Auckland, and Mr F. E. Graham, of Christchurch, sharebroker. Mr Barton, Professor Belshaw and Mr Graham are members of the Commission. Mr D. K. Richmond and Mr M. H. Hampson (Auckland), appeared in support of the summons for leave to issue the interrogatories, and Mr J. B. Callan, K.C., with Mr Rose, appeared to oppose it. Mr Richmond submitted that the relevancy of the proposed question depended on whether a Royal Commission was a judicial tribunal or not. He submitted that it was, for the reason that writs of prohibition had been issued against such Commissions in the past, and such writs could, by law, only be issued against judicial bodies. Mr Callan agreed that, for the purpose of to-day’s argument, the Commission should be regarded as a judicial tribunal.

Mr Richmond stated that the plaintiffs alleged that Professor Belshaw; was the spearpoint of an attack against the bond-selling companies and the investment trusts; and, that, by reason of his bias and the predetermination of his thought, he was not a proper person to act on the Commission. Mr Graham, as an expresident of the Christchurch Stock Exchange, was financially Interested in matters to be determined by the Commission, and he was also not a proper person to be appointed. Mr Callan stated that the defendants objected to the questions asked in the interrogatories because, running through them, there was an attempt to find out the names of the particular companies to which Professor Belshaw had referred, under general headings, in bis writings. Similarly, questions put to Mr Graham sought to establish that he had been hostile to a certain investment trust company. Mr Callan submitted that the interrogatories should not be used for the purpose of clearing the commercial character of certain companies.

The Court proceeded to deal with the interrogatories individually, and, with the exception of a few, that were agreed to by both parties, they were deleted, either by consnt, or by the Court, as being oppressive.