CLOSING SCENES

Gisborne Herald, Volume LXVII, Issue 20241, 8 May 1940, Page 6

CLOSING SCENES

PARTING TRIBUTES AFTER TWO MONTHS PROTRACTED HALL CASE PLAINTIFFS’ FINAL PLEA RIGHTS OF THE POOR MAN Shortly after 5 p.m. yesterday, counsel and their supporters engaged in the Hall estate case, which has occupied the attention of Mr. Justice Callan in the Supreme Court in Gisborne for the past two months, began to pack their volumes of law books and masses of documents. After fighting this protracted legal battle, the longest known in New Zealand, counsel made a few parting tributes, mainly directed at the patience and courtesy of the judge, who, as expected, reserved his decision. The first to speak in this vein was Mr. M. 11. Hampson, who with Mr. W. D. Lysnar as senior counsel, appeared for the plaintiffs, F. T. Hall and others, in their claim of £52,000. Mr. Hampson made the final address, which he concluded shortly before 5 oleloek. “I cannot sit down, Your HonpUr,” he said at the close, “without expressing on behalf of myself and my leader our real thanks to my learned friends, not only for their bearing in this court —which was not other than what we expected in view of their standing, and which we have endeavoured to follow—but also for their camaraderie in the robing room, which has helped us day by day to carry through this arduous case in a manner which the late Fred Hall himself would have called a merry road. Also, we and our clients feel that no gratitude would be too great to express to Your Honour for the patience shown throughout this arduous and protracted trial.” Patience and Courtesy Mr. D. R. Hoggard, who with Mr. A. P. Blair appeared for the Bank of New Zealand, made some reference to law cases cited by Mr. Hampson in his final address, and added that before he sat down he wished to say how he appreciated His Honour’s patience and courtesy with which he had conducted the proceedings, and he appreciated also what Mr. Hampson had done to shorten the case, which might have been still further protracted. Mr. A. H. Johnstone, K.C., who with Mr. J. G. Nolan appeared for the Guardian Trust and Executors Company, Limited, and Frank Wrey Nolan, also made reference to law quoted by Mr. Hampson, and added that he also wished to associate himself with what Messrs. Hampson and Hoggard had said regarding His Honour’s “extreme patience throughout this protracted trial.” Mr. H. E. Evans, in the absence of his leader, Mr. H. F. O’Leary. K.C., who was called away to Wellington during the week-end and who represented the Union Bank of Australia, Limited, also associated himself heartily with what had been said regarding His Honour in making happier the proceedings during the long trial. The Closing Address During the closing portion of his final address Mr. Hampson submitted that the plaintiffs had established lack of bona tides on the part of the two banks in 1929 in making use of a dishonest servant.

“We could have called that servant to give evidence instead of making him a party,” Mr. Hampson said, “and in our submission it does not lie in the mouth of my learned friend Mr. Johnstone to say that we cannot allege fraud as between the two banks in 1929 without making him a party, as he is not charged at that time, and that therefore no allegation in that form can be made.” Mr. Johnstone said that the fraud and conspiracy alleged against two banks prior to 1935 referred only to two alleged wrongful acts, taking of the two properties of F. T. and C. E. Hall. They were not charged with being unfaithful servants.

Mr. Hampson said that on the pleadings generally there was one submission he should have made earlier. He previously submitted that the banks had lost their right to any share in the dividend by acting in breach of the Bankruptcy Act. “Throus-h the Wilderness” In such a case as this, he added, the pleadings must be made wifii incomplete evidence, and it was only by stumbling along through the wilderness that they would be able to get through. It was only by taking the wrong paths and finding their errors that *hey were able to go back and make a fresh start. They were wrong in assuming 1927 as the start of the conspiracy, and they now found the time was 1929. It was for His Honour to say whether the plaintiffs had hacked their way through the wilderness of alleged shams. If the bridge of their pleadings which was the connecting link was secure, the plaintiffs would prove their case. If the court came to the conclusion that the plaintiffs had spelt their case out on the facts, even up to the time of the delivery of judgment, the court had the power to amend the pleadings. In his submission, however, no amendment would be required. The pleadings* had told fully and substantially the story without any reasonable opportunity +o the defendants to say that they had been surprised or embarrassed in the manner in which the case had been finally put. He still contended that he was entitled to set up two separate grounds of fraud in 1929 from the mimbe” of illegalities which the plaintiffs said had been established, so many as to prohibit any reasonable inference of bona fides. First Time in Empire “And if, in the final result,” Mr. Hampson went on, “it is that onus of proof is discharged, then the case nw well be termed a big case, not from the amount involved and not from the time taken, but because -it is the first time so far as we know His Honour: Or I. Mr. Hampson: “ that the true position of the banking' system has been put. Before the Macmillan report, banking cases were determined on the principle that b-- 1 were holders of the public savings, and it was necessary for them to take strong • steps against indebtedness. So far as both Your Honour and T know, the Macmillan report has not been before any court in the Empire. Mr. Johnstone: And it is not before this one.. Mr. Hampson: In our submission it is, and it may, indeed, be one of the most serious questions and Your Honour will appreciate that it is only in this court, whether sitting here or sitting thousands of miles away, that the poor man can come for redress and that for precisely the same principles hundreds of years ago the baron came before the court against the King and the poor man against the baron. We are entitled to come before this court, where the poor man is protesting against a real invasion of his rights against the strong financial interests.” Judge on “Money Barons” His Honour suggested that to keep the allusion in keeping with that of hundreds of years ago, Mr. Hampson might refer to a strong invasion of rights by the money barons. (Laughter.) Mr. Hampson: I would be most haopy if you would. Your Honour. Continuing, Mr. Hampson said that the attempt to amend the prayer of the petition did not meet with the approval of the defendants, but it was within the court’s right to grant relief to the plaintiffs. On the ground of fraud, the plaintiffs asked for damages, the measure of which should be the position of the estate before the first alleged wrongful act was done in 1930, namely, taking over of the securities, including the obtaining of the mortgages from F. T. and C. E. Hall, but if the plaintiffs had to rely on actionable wrongs only, then thev did not ask damages in respect of the Regent, Willows or Gladstone sales and sales of shares, or any other sales. They sank the declarations in respect of the sales of which they had spoken, and would be content lo take such remedies as thought proper thereafter, and lo agree that other sales were null and void. In respect of sales of which they wot not, they asked for an inquiry, and in any event asked for the removal of the administrator and of the trustees and executors, while in the case of the free assets they asked for an order excluding the banks from any share in any dividend or, in the alternative, that they were bound lo the Is 7d dividend; w’tb the usual consequential orders for the administrator to bring the funds into court arid for the appointment of new trustees as indicated in the amended praver. His Honour said he would take time to consider the case, and the court concluded.