TRUST INQUIRY.

Manawatu Standard, Volume LIV, Issue 307, 24 November 1934, Page 7

TRUST INQUIRY.

EVIDENCE BY ACCOUNTANT. REFERENCE TO CABLE. SYDNEY, Nov. 23. Before the Commission inquiring into company affairs, Mr Pitt, K.C., representing certain debenture-holders, invited the Commission to consider Mr L. W. Swan’s scheme to keep three companies in existence and liquidate others. Mr Pitt outlined proposals for the control of the three companies and the method of electing directors, and stated that McArthur and Alcorn would be eliminated, from any board. Mr Robert Hill, accountant, who is assisting the Commission, gave evidence that the scheme was workable and would assist in the preservation of the assets, but the question of administration costs would have to be determined. He added that to sell the trust building would be calamitous.. Mr Monahan, counsel assisting the Commissioner, handed in a document which he said was a translation of a cablegram from the New Zealand Prime Minister. The document which, in his opinion, omitted one or two essential words, set out that the New Zealand Government did not recognise Mr Swan’s scheme as representing the wishes of debenture-holders. The cable proceeded: “Understand scheme originated by committee created as result postal canvass by Levy and 'Madden after former’s visit to Sydney for consultation at request of McArthur. My Government is strongly of the opinion that no. steps should be taken based on alleged views of debenture-holders till authoritative disinterested statement facts been communicated them also proper steps taken to ensure wellinformed uninfluenced opinion by them.” Leonard Wesley Swan, public accountant, Auckland, gave evidence that he first came into the matter when approached by a Mr Levy of Wellington, who held about £-009 worth of debentures. Mr Levy was introduced by a Mr Richmond, a barrister* The Commissioner (Mr Justice Halse Rogers): Who is paying your expenses ? Mr Swan : The debenture-holders committee. The funds were supplied by Mr Levy with the assurance that othei debentur-e-holders would support him to get the money back. Mr Levy made it clear that the first step to be taken was to send a cable to McArthur. i then came to Sydney, and I am ing to New Zealand-convinced that so far as the Investment Executive Trust is concerned there is 20s in the £1 available.” , ~ Replying to Mr Monahan, witness said he had had conversations with McArthur in Sydney . At this stage Mr Pitt examined the message from the New Zealand Government, after which he declared: There is an inaccuracy to begin witn, as Mr Swan has never suggested this scheme to debenture-holders. The Commissioner, to Mr swan. What in fact did you put to debentureholders ? . . < Swan: Nothing, sir. , Replying further to Mr Monahan, Mr Swan said he had read only about one-third of a page of a certain publication referring to tbe Kelly Commissioner said that the opinion of debenture-holders ought to be obtained as soon as possible. The Commission adjourned to a elate to be fixed. STATEMENT BY BARRISTER. REFERENCES TO REPORT. Per Press’ Association. AUCKLAND, Nov. 24. With reference to the evidence of Mr L. W. Swan, of Auckland, at the Sydney trust inquiry yesterday, Mr H. P. Richmond, a barrister, of Auckland, said to-day that the statement that “Mr. Levy was introduced by Mr Richmond, a barrister, was untrue and as none would suspect Mr Swan of an untruth the report was apparently inaccurate. Mr Richmond also questioned the statement attributed to Mr Swan that “Mr Levy rood© it cl€ar that the iiist step to he taken was to send a cablegram to Mr McArthur,” and said he felt convinced this was an erroneous Mr Richmond added that he had been retained for an organisation or debenture-holders and in Mr Swan s absence it seemed to him his duty at once to correct what appeared undoubted inaccuracies in the report.