COMPANY COMMISSION

Manawatu Standard, Volume LIV, Issue 118, 18 April 1934, Page 2

COMPANY COMMISSION

HEARING OF FULL COURT CASE. Per Press Association. WELLINGTON, April 18. The Full Court lias commenced the hearing of what has com© to be known throughout the Dominion as the “Company Commission case." Plaintiffs— Timberlands Woodpulp, Ltd., Maurice Vincent Bates and Tung Oil Securities (New Zealand) Ltd —in their statement of claim, detail the appointment of the Commissioners, John Saxon Barton, Horace Belsliaw and Trank Edward Graham, by the Governor-Gen-eral, acting under the powers conferred by the Commissions of Enquiry Act, luoß. They describe the plaintiff company, Timberlands Woodpulp, Ltd., to be a company incorporated in New South Wales and having its principal place of business in New Zealand at Auckland; Maurice Vincent Bates to be a public accountant and licensed sharebroker, of Auckland, and a member and secretary of the Stock Exchange Corporation of New Zealand; and Tung Oil Securties, Ltd., as a New Zealand Company having its registered office at Auckland. They allege that at the date of the appointment of the Commission no legislation had been proposed or contemplated by the Government in respect of the matters set out in the appointment of the Commission, and that consequently the Governor-General had no power or authority under the Act to issue the commission. The appointment of Professor Belsliaw is objected to on the ground that he has, in the course of statements publicly made in writing prior to the date of the Commission, shown bias or pre-judg-ment in his criticism concerning the promotion, financial methods, control and operation of companies and other corporations which seek to raise capital in this country. Defendant Francis Edward Graham is alleged to have a pecuniary interest in the operation of th© present statute governing stock exchanges in New Zealand and likely to be biassed against the Stock Exchange Corporation of New Zealand because lie is a member and shareholder of the Christchurch Stock Exchange and for many years, until Tebruarv, 1934, was president and a director thereof. For these reasons defendants Belsliaw and Graham are said to be not fit and proper persons to act, and the prayer is made that the Commissioners appointed, or alternatively one or both of defendants Belsliaw and Graham, may be prohibited by writ from enquiring into, taking evidence or reporting upon the matters set out in the Commission. In support of the allegations so contained in the statement of claim, various affidavits have been filed dealing with the alleged pre-judgment or bias of the two commissioners and the absence of any intention on the part ot the Government to introduce legislation dealing with the matters to be considered by the Commissioners. THE DEFENCE. Defendants, by their statement of defence, deny the allegations of plaintiffs concerning lack of intention on the part of the Government to introduce the legislation in question, and, whilst admitting that Professor Belsliaw has published articles dealing with the matters stated, deny that he lias shown bias or pro-judgment. They admit, furthermore, Mr Graham’s connection with the Christchurch Stock Exchange, but deny the other allegations made against him. Affirmatively, they .contend that the Commission was validly constituted and consequently has full power and authority to act. In addition to affidavits filed by Professor Belsliaw and Mr Graham defining their positions, an affidavit has been made by Rt. Hon. J. G. Coates .stating that the matters to be considered by the Commissioners had been receiving the attention of the Government for some time and that it intended that suitable provisions dealing with evils thought to exist should be incorporated in the Companies Act of last year. This was not done as it was considered that the form of the proposed provisions would depend upon a detailed examination of the structure and methods of companies, then under review and it was decided to defer the introduction of the proposed legislation. The matter, nevertheless, was being kept actively in view. Messrs' Richmond and Hampson (Auckland) are appearing for plaintiffs and Messrs Ca.llan and Rose (Wellington) for the Commissioners. The case is proceeding.