CHRISTCHURCH CASE

Manawatu Standard, Volume LVII, Issue 10, 10 December 1936, Page 30

CHRISTCHURCH CASE

t EVIDENCE CONCLUDED. Per Press. Association. CHRISTCHURCH, Dec. 9. Criticism of the evidence of 0. A. I Bridgewater so far as it referred to ■ lack of memory on the meaning of the cablegram produced at the hearing I yesterday was expressed by His Honour Mr Justice Northoroft, in the Supreme Court to-day, when the debenture case was continued. The question arose dxiring counsel's address, and His Honour said that he was unable to accept Bridgewater's lack of memory. The case concluded to-day, and His Honour announced that he hoped to give judgment tomorrow. Plaintiff was George Ernest Argyle, printer, of Ashburton, who claimed return by the defendant, the Australian Investment Corporation, of debentures to a face value of £l7O in the Investment Executive Trust* and of dividends paid by the Public Trustee as liquidator of the Investment Executive Trust. Plaintiff's allegation was that he was induced to transfer debentures to defendant company by misrepresentations of defendant's agent. Osmond Arthur Bridgewater. Mr R. A. Young and with him Mr H. W. Hunter appeared for plaintiff. Defendant company was represented by Mr M. J. Gresson, and with him Mr L. J. Hensley. When the case was resumed this morning the examination of Bridgewater was continued. Mr Young: Did you disclose to any one of the people you approached that you had put only £1 into the company? Bridgewater: I cannot remember, but I pointed out to them that Bridgewater and Co., Ltd., had taken 500 shares to 6tart the show off. William Munro, retired baker, ol Christchurch, said that at the liquidation of the Investment Trust he had a holding of £2950 and his wife £2050. He was interested in the debenture holders' committee, and in 1935 went round asking for support for the committee. He first heard of water's proposal for the formation of a. company some time before the formation and he approved of such a scheme. Subsequently he was asked by Bridgewater to canvass debenture holders. There was no payment or promise of payment. He got no commission, but received 25 guineas and travelled with Bridgewater. The 25 guineas was for out-of-pocket expenses and was paid by the defendant panyHis Honour pointed out that witness was endeavouring to persuade people to join the committee, and asked what witness told people he was doing about his own holding. The witness denied saying that lie had transferred. He did say that he and his wife had £SOOO in the trust, but he made no mention of the corporation. , ' Mr Young: Why were you paid 2o guineas? Witness : Out-of-pocket expenses and wear and tear.

Mr Young: Wear and tear on yourself? , * Witness : Yes. Mr Young: .Would not the people you saw infer that you had transferred your whole money’ ? Witness: That was not the intention. Mr Young: Why did you not tell anyone your wife had not transferred? Witness : It was one of the things you can’t explain. I had not ulterior motive. . Witness added that he did not hear Bridgewater ask Argyle if he would consent to not going on witn the complaint. . During cross-examination witness declared that after the May visit to Argyle Bridgewater wrote down a note of what had been said after the interview concluded. On this incident he was questioned by His Honour. “Did you like doing that?” His Honour asked. Witness : No, I didn’t like doing it. I didn’t like anything about it at all. I had no great desire to do it. His Honour: I can sympathise with you. This closed the evidence for Ihe defence, and counsel addressed the Court.