Redwood Forest Case

Grey River Argus, 23 September 1936, Page 8

Redwood Forest Case

(Per Press Association.) AUCKLAND, September 21. Evidence in the proceedings taken hv the trustees for the debenture holders of the New Zealand Redwood Forests Ltd., was completed in the Supreme Court, when the principal evidence for the defence was Riven by M. IL Hampson, a solicitor, ol K 10 Mn’rtin 11. Hampson described the events leading to the formation ot the Edßeeunibe Company and its ton trol of 22,000 acres of land. He said the negotiations began in 1919 and u P till 1925 they cost _ him aoout T W. S. McArthur joined him m 1The witness proceeded to outline tie affairs of the Redwood Coin P an >’ ” which he became a direetoi at i Arthur’s request in 1929. Tn Septeniber 1930. he said, the financial position was one of extreme graviety, and the debenture holders, scattered out the world, had 'only the directors on whom to rely. If the trees were no planted out, they would become a total loss, and the company would have to go into liquidation. A substantial number of the debenture holders Mould have got back a small portion of. their money, but most would have Jost it all. The only solution was to find money to plant the trees. The Edgecombe Company agreed to transfer 2099 acres to the'Redwood Company, taking no security. and the deed was executed by both companies. That was the 2999 acres in respect, of which the £7500 mortgage was now registered. The witness said he protested against the sale of the Matahina block at 35s an acre, but was over-ruled by McArthur and Wiseman. Mr. Barrowclough said that if Hampson had protested in this matter, involving a loss of £44,000, he would certainly have expected his dissent to be recorded somewhere in the minutes. Tn answering Mr. Barrowclough the witness said he believed the land was worth £3 15s an acre, but his codirectors sold it for £1 15s, against

his wishes. “I was responsible for forming the Queensland Investment Company,” said the witness. Mr. Barrowclough: Was it formed to prevent the New Zealand Government from obtaining possession of the assets? Witness: Definitely, it was, in my opinion, the only manner in which the ownership of the Wynwood assets could be tested by the courts. Mr. Barrowelough: Am I right in my assumption that the Queensland company is McArthur?--You are entirely wrong. What did McArthur put into the company? —Not a match. I know he was not a shareholder, but what did he give to the company —Of course, the company was formed for the express purpose of taking over his assets. What did it take over from him?— I am not sure. 1 never attended a dir ectors’ meeting. The Court adjourned to hear legal argument on September 30.