COMPANY COMMISSION.

Manawatu Standard, Volume LIV, Issue 117, 17 April 1934, Page 7

COMPANY COMMISSION.

OBJECTIONS TO QUESTIONS. Per Press Association. WELLINGTON, April 16. The Full Court to-day considered the important preliminary question arising in the action to prevent the Company Commission proceeding. The question involved the admissibility of certain interrogatories which plaintiffs wished to put to two of the defendants, namely, Professor Belshaw and Mr Graham. ;

The plaintiffs in the action are Tiniberlands Woodpulp, Ltd., Maurice Vincent Bates, of Auckland, licensed sharebroker, and a member of the Stock Exchange; and Tung Oil Securities (N.Z.), Ltd. Defendants are the Attorney-General and J. S. Barton, of Wellington, Stipendiary Magistrate, Professor H. Belshaw, of Auckland; and F. E. Graham, of Christchurch, sharebroker. Messrs Barton, Belshaw and Graham are members of the Commission. Messrs D. K. Richmond and M. 11. Hampson (Auckland) appeared in support of the summons for leave to issue interrogatories, and Mr J. B. Callan, Iv.C., with Mr Rose, appeared to oppose it. Mr Richmond submitted that the relevancy of the proposed questions depended on whether the 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.

Air Richmond then stated that the plaintiffs alleged that Professor Belshaw was the spearpoint of the attack against bond-selling companies and investment trusts by reason of bias and pre-determination of thought and was not a proper person to act on the Commission. Air Graham, as ex-president of the Christchurch Stock Exchange, was financially interested in matters to be determined by the Commission, and was also not a proper person to be appointed. Air Callan stated that defendants objected to the questions asked in the interrogatories because running through them was an attempt to find out the names of particular companies to which Professor Belshaw bad referred under general headings in his writings. Similarly the questions put to Air Graham sought to establish that ho had been hostile to a. certain investment trust company. Mr Callan submitted that the interrogatories should not be used for tho 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 agreed to. by both parties they -were deleted either by consent or by the Court as being oppressive.