Thank you for correcting the text in this article. Your corrections improve Papers Past searches for everyone. See the latest corrections.

This article contains searchable text which was automatically generated and may contain errors. Join the community and correct any errors you spot to help us improve Papers Past.

Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image

McARTHUR TRUST SHARES

SUPREME COURT APPEAL, [PEB PBESS ASSOCIATION.] INVERCARGILL, February 25. Judgment was reserved by Mr. Justice Kennedy in the Supreme Court to-day in the case in which Harold Calvert, share salesman, appealed against a conviction by Mr. W. H. Freeman, S.M., on October 16, 1936, when he was fined £2OO on a charge of offering shares for subscription. Mr. P. B. Cooke, K.C., of Wellington, assisted by Mr. G. V. Murdoch, of Dunedin, appeared on behalf of the appellant, and Mr. H. J. Macalister represented'the'informant, John Albert Colin Mackenzie, trustee in the estate of James Fleck, of Riverton, debenture holder in the Investment Executive Trust, Ltd., and shareholders in the McArthur Trust.

Continuing his address this morning, Mr. Cooke said that the conviction or information charged Calvert with offering shares for subscription to eight persons. There was -no suggestion that Calvert went“aiiywhere but to houses where he could find those eight persons for the purpose of making offers to them. Second, was there an offer? The evidence showed that Calvert made no offer which resulted in a binding contract. A contract was made by the persons accepted by the McArthur Trust in Brisbane. There was no offer foF.subscription, meaning an offer of shares'-ih.'. return for cash payment. In the present case there was exchange of debentures for shares. The consideration given for the shares was not money but debentures. There was no offer to the. public, said council. The offer was to a * defined class, land in addition: they were nominated. “Regarding the question of sentence,” continued Mr; Cooke, “I submit that the-find is* excessive. There is no suggestion of any previous 'offence and-' no evidence .to show 'that Calvert knew he was; breaking the law'. The magistrate said' T 'have no doubt it was a? scare that he and his ; colleagues.made,’ blithe had no justification for it.” His Honor: I have to go on the evidence before me.

“Briefly, the magistrate, in his judgment, refers to ‘a sinking ship,” Mr. Cooke continued. “The debentureholders could have saved themselves thousands of pounds instead of being ruined, and the position was made worse by Calvert’s effrontery. ' There is no evidence on any' of these, no evidence on the value of McArthur Trust shares, no evidence of any loss suffered by these people, and no evidence of any complaints made. There is no reason why any person associated with the name of McArthur should be convicted. This prosecution was not commenced by the police, the guardians of the people, but by a solicitor of this court. It is a private prosecution, and I submit it is a left-handed attempt to obtain recission.” His Honor: I am not going to worry about who laid the information. I have to hear the evidence laid before me. \ Mr. Cooke: Am I not entitled to draw attention to the difference between a public and a private prosecution? His Honor: I am to go on the evidence before me. If there should be guilt, I am not concerned with who discharges the public duty, a private person or the police, in bringing .the matter before the Court. Mr. Macalister, addressing the Court, said it might well be that one isolated visit was riot an offence, but it could become an offence if it were the starting point of a series of visits. On the question of what constituted “going from house to house,” he referred to a judgment by Mr. Justice Northcroft, because he made it clear that it was a question of fact. It was not necessary to visit every house in a street. Referring to the offering of shares for subscription or counsel, submitted that the very offer of ah exchange of debentures for shares involved an offer of shares, and that the offer was toward either subscription or purchase. It was quite clear from the evidence that shares were offered for subscription. The further fact that the offers were only made to debenture-holders in the Investment Executive Trust did not take the case out of the prohibition provided for in the section.

Permanent link to this item

https://paperspast.natlib.govt.nz/newspapers/GEST19370227.2.26

Bibliographic details

Greymouth Evening Star, 27 February 1937, Page 7

Word Count
680

McARTHUR TRUST SHARES Greymouth Evening Star, 27 February 1937, Page 7

McARTHUR TRUST SHARES Greymouth Evening Star, 27 February 1937, Page 7

Help

Log in or create a Papers Past website account

Use your Papers Past website account to correct newspaper text.

By creating and using this account you agree to our terms of use.

Log in with RealMe®

If you’ve used a RealMe login somewhere else, you can use it here too. If you don’t already have a username and password, just click Log in and you can choose to create one.


Log in again to continue your work

Your session has expired.

Log in again with RealMe®


Alert