DEBENTURE FRAUD ALLEGATION

Northern Advocate, 10 December 1936, Page 11

DEBENTURE FRAUD ALLEGATION

HEARING OF EVIDENCE CONCLUDED

C Per Press Association. —Copyright.] CHRISTCHURCH, This Day.

Criticism of the evidence of O. A. Bridgewater, so far as it referred to his lack of memory on tne meaning of the cable produced at the hearing on Tuesday, was expressed by Mr Justice Northcroft in the Supreme Court yesterday when the debenture case was continued.

The question arose during counsel’s address, and the judge said he was unable to accept Bridgewater's lack of memory. The case concluded yesterday, and his Honour announced that the hoped to give judgment today.

Plaintiff was George Ernest Argyle, printer, of Ashburton, who claimed the return by defendant, the Australian Investment Corporation, of debentures to the face value of £ 170 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 had been induced to transfer debentures to the defendant company by the misrepresentations of defendant’s agenl , O. f A. Bridgewater, agent, Osmond Arthur Bridgewater, Mr R. A. Young, and with him Mr W. H. Hunter, appeared for plaintiff, while the defendant company was represented by Mr M. J. Gresson, and with him Mr L. D. Hensley.

To “Start Show Off.” i Mr Young (continuing his crossexamination of Bridgewater): Did you disclose to anyone of the people you approached that you had put only £1 into the company?—l cannot remem ; ber, but I pointed out to them that Bridgewater and Go., Ltd:; had taken 500 shares to “start the show off.” William Munro, a retired baker, of 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 he went round asking for support for the committee. He first heard of Bridgewater’s proposal for the formation of a company some time before its 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 company.

Judge’s Comment,

His Honour pointed out that witness was endeavouirng to persuade people to join the committee, and asked whet he told the people he was doing about his own holding. Witness denied saying that he had transferred. He did say he and his wife had £SOOO in trust, but he made no mention of the corporation. Mr Young: Why were you paid 25 guineas?—Out-of-pocket expenses and wear and tear.

Wear and tear on yourself?—Yes.

Would not the people you saw infer that you had transferred your whole money?—That was not the intention. Why did you not tell anyone that your wife had not transferred? —It’s one of the things you can’t explain. I had no ulterior motive. Witness added that he did not hear Bridgwater ask Argyle if he would consent to not going on with the complaint.

■‘l Can’t Sympathise.”

During cross-examination Munro declared that after the May visit to Argyle. Bridgewater wrote down a note of what had been said after the interview had 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't sympathise with you. This closed the evidence for the defence and counsel addressed the Court.