ONEKAKA CASE

Nelson Evening Mail, Volume 76, 4 August 1941, Page 6

ONEKAKA CASE

FURTHER EVIDENCE HEARD PERSONAL EXPLANATION BY MR CHEF. K When the Warden's Court resumed this morning in the hearing of the adion for the forfeiture of mining pri vileges at Onckaka, Mr M. C. H. Cheek said that he wished to make a perIn the early part of th evidence of \ Mr Gibbs, counsel made some reference to the correspondence between one of the Ministers and the trustees, and the t Solicitor-General ‘ interjected, "That’s | political propaganda. ’ At the time | counsel was convinced that the remark was in reference only to something in , the correspondence, and had no personal reference to himself. Unfortu nately the newspaper report was so j expressed as to be open to the con - ; struction that the Solicitor-General j meant that counsel personally had ad- . duced political propaganda. Mr i Cheek said he was quite sure that the , Solicitor General’s comment was not j intended to have any such implication. : The Court would recollect that he said i it was better to say :“The Government in 1934,” than to refer to “the former Government.” His object in this was tr. free the case, at any rate so far as Lis part in it was concerned, from any colour of party politics. Mr 11. H. Cornish. K.C., said that his remark had no reference whatsoever to Mi Cheek personally. Mr Cheek had I .jeen scrupulously fair in the Court. Mr T. E. Maunsell, Warden, presided. Mr H. H. Cornish, with Mr C. R. Fell, appeared for th Clown, Messrs P. B. Cooke. K.C., and Cheek for the | Onekaka Iron and Steel company Limited (in liquidation), Mr C. H. Weston, K.C., with Mr F. P. Kelly for the Gol- ■ den Bay Proprietary Limited, and Mr ! W J. Sim, K.C., and Mr A. L. Hudson i for Pacific Steel Limited, I The cross-examination of Frederick i G. Gibbs was continued. Mr Fell referred to witness’s remark, when *- s attention was drawn to the j date of application for the extension of the option on 22nd February, the ! acceptance of the option on 23rd Feb- ! ruary, and the granting of the exteni sion of the option on 24th February, that it was a reasonable business precaution bv Pacific Steel to have two ! strings to its bow. ' By “two strings” he meant the applii cation for extension and the exercise juf the option, said witness. He was not ' prepared to say whether there was any need to apply to extend the option when they had decided to exercise the option. He did not know that anything had happened betv.ttn the date <>f the interview with Mr Nash in We! hington and the 23rd February to do I away with the necessity for the two : points on which Pacific Steel wanted assurance from the Government, but he knew it was not at all impossible that j Watson might at any time find a financial group willing to take up the ven- < lure in spite of the hostile attitude of . the Government, which had for long , been their only bar to success. FINDING THE MONEY Witness was cross-examined on the prospects of Pacific Steel having been able to find the money in the fortnight prior to the acceptance of the offer. He thought that Pacific Steel might have been accepting the offer either on the prospects of finance mentioned in a cable (produced) or on at least two i other negotiations. He denied that. in the interview with Mr Nash, lie ‘mentioned the £3.000.000 proposal, ex- , cept in reply to Mr Nash's inquiry. A?, receivers and trustees they did not put any specilic proposition. They did not tell the Government the nature of the flotation they were asking the Gov ’ eminent to assist. The proposal had been modified since the £2.700.000 proi posal. Mr Nash, at the 1938 meeting, referred to the former plan (the 1935 plan » and he was talking about profits land not actual receipts, of Pacific Steel. Re-examined, witness said that from information received he considered that Pacific Steel during 1936-37 h*ad good ; prospects of establishing the industry. Mr Cooke said that that was all the evidence the Onekaka Company proposed to call in Nelson. PACIFIC STEEL’S CASE Opening the ease for Pacific Steel Mr Sim asked the Warden either-to impose a tine or dismiss the case. What course the Warden adopted would depend on the Warden’s view of the equity of the whole situation. He adopted all Mr Cooke's submissions on both fact and law, and also all those put forward under the headinu of special circumstances. Pacific Steel ! would show that they had prepared the way at great expense for the establishing of tliis industry. The Crown was [building an organisation on Pacific | Steel’s work, and now came to take as ; well the assets on which to apply ail the work Pacific Steel had got together. It would be inequitable on the part of the Crown to be allowed forfeiture, he maintained. Pacific Steel, in addition to seeking compensation later, wero issuing a writ against Brassert’s founded upon breach of contract and breach ;of trust. Mr Cornish objected to the statement as being out of place. Mr Sim said that the Crown, by using Brassert’s work, was disentitled to the relief sought in these proceedings. This ! was a proceeding by the iron and steel industry against lessees whose rights they were seeking to forfeit. Pacific Steel had a difficulty in re- | constructing the case three years after- | wards, and Watson, who had been largei ly responsible for organising the com pany. was in England organising evij deuce for the compensation claim and was not able to appear here. There I was no want of bona tides on the part ! of the company. i Mr Cornish: There was no want ol bona fldes, but want of cash. Mr Sim said that ho was glad the question of bona tides had been cleared up. A- regards the cash, that arose out of the London evidence and he did not intend to worry the Warden with it here. PACIFIC STEEL SHAREHOLDING Evidence was given by Arthur Morton Henry Shirtclifl', general manager of the Canterbury Farmers’ Co-operative Association, Timaru, who said that he became a director of Pacific Steel m January 1935, but, for a considerable time before that, he had been interested a.- an investor. He had invested £SOO There were 273 shareholders and con-' ti'bulors. At the end of 1932 Mr Watson made his first \ isit to England. In March 1933 Watson first got in touch with Brassert’s and received the lir-t report from Brassert’s in August.