COMPANY INQUIRY

Nelson Evening Mail, Volume LXVI, 21 April 1934, Page 8

COMPANY INQUIRY

STATUS OF COMMISSION WRIT APPLIED FOR CASH FOR- DEFENDANTS (By Telegraph—Press Association) WELLINGTON. 20th April. Ru’iher submissions in support of the application for a writ prohibiting John Saxon Barton, S.M.. Nonce Belshaw, and Frank Edward Graham from’acting as members of the Company Commission were heard by the Full Court yesterday afternoon. The plaintiffs are Timberlands Woodpulp, Ltd Maurice Vincent Bates, secretary of the Stock Exchange Corporation of New Zealand and Tung Oil Securities (N.Z.). Ltd. On the Bench were the Chief Justice (Sir Michael Myers), Mr Justice Herdman, Mr Justice Reed, and Mr Justice Blair. , TT it Mr H. P. Richmond and Mr 11. ItHampson, of Auckland, appeared for the plaintiffs, and Mr J. R. Callan, K.C., with him, Mr G. G. Rose, for the defendants. , | Continuing the case for the defendants, Mr Callan submitted that there was no power for the Commission to award costs because in this instance there were no parties, but even if there were power, that in itself being merely ancillary to the inquiry, did not render the Commission a judicial tribunal. As regards power to fine, the statute merely imposed liability to be fined, and the Commission itself could not impose a fine. For that purpose recourse would have to be had to the Magistrate’s Court under the Justices of the Peace Act. Mr Callan was proceeding to elaborate his submission that the Commission was validly constituted when the Chief Justice stated that the Court was of opinion there was no doubt that it was intra vires. At the same time, the Court would like to hear a brief outline of Mr Callan’s argument on this point. Mr Callan stated the purposes the Commission were not to aid the Government in finding out evils, because the Government was already aware that such evils existed. The objects were rather to ascertain whether legislation could do anything to remedy these evils, and if so what- form the legislation should take. “Proposed legislation ’ meant that the Government was minded to introduce legislation. Plaintiff s construction of “proposed legislation” was a narrow one and would defeat the object of the statute, as it would mean the Government could not set up a Commission without having first introduced a bill into Parliament. Dealing with the question of bias Mr Callan stated he wished to answer the allegation that Bclshaw had committed a breach of good taste in acting on the Commission. As the purpose of the Commission was not to find out evils but to consider remedies for evils known by the Government to exist, what was more natural for the Government than to turn to Belshaw whose special knowledge and ability was so valuable. Admittedly he was hostile to some methods of certain companies, but so was the Government and Belshaw was accordingly the most suitable man to appoint. Not' only was Belshaw guiltless of a breach of good taste but he was also acting with great public spiritedness and carrying out a public duty. With reference to the pamphlet and articles of Belshaw referred to by the plaintiffs, Mr Callan said the suggestions therein were onR tentatively .made, showing that Belshaw preserved the open mind of a scientific observer and . had not prejudged the matters concerned. Mr Callan submitted that questions of bias and pre-judgment found very little scope in a tribunal of this nature. Its report had first to be approved by Cabinet and then legislation passed before its. findings affected individuals. Dealing with the objections of the plaintiffs to Graham, counsel contended that Graham was not a judicial officer but; a person appointed to enquire as to ■ possible legislation. If he were dis- J qualified then no prominent sharebroker, would be qualified to sit on the Commission, and this would debar the Com- j mission from utilising the services of a' class of men most useful for the purpose. It was necessary that a sharebroker should be on {he Commission,