SALE OF SHARES

New Zealand Herald, Volume LXXIV, Issue 22657, 19 February 1937, Page 11

SALE OF SHARES

HAWKING ALLEGED VISITS PAID TO HOUSES CROWN BRINGS II CHARGES CHRISTCHURCH MAN ON TRIAL [BY TELEGRAPH —PRESS ASSOCIATION] CHRISTCHURCH, Thursday The trial of Osmond Arthur Bridgewater on 11 charges of "share-hawk-ing " was commenced in the Supreme Court this morning. In each case the " text of the charge was that he went from house to bouse offering for subscription or purchase to members of the public shares in Australasian Investment Corporation, Limited. Mr. Justice Northcroft presided and Mr. W. R. Lascelles prosecuted. The accused was represented by Mr. H. F. O'Leary, K.C., of Wellington, and with him Mr. D. W. Russell? Mr. Lascelles directed the attention of the jury to that section of the Companies Act, 1933, under which the charges were laid. It read: It shall not be lawful for any person to go from house to house offering shares for subscription or purchase to the public, or any member of the public." That, said Mr. Lascelles, did not apply to places of business, or to shares in dairy companies and shares of other co-operative •concerns. Link Between Companies All the people visited by Bridewater, he continued, had previously acquired debentures in the Investment Executive Trust of New Zealand, Ximited. There was a link between that company and the Australasian Investment Corporation disclosed in the prospectus of the Australasian Investment Corporation Company, in which the accused ■was interested. That company had aa one of its objects the acquisition of the debentures of the Investment Executive Trust of New Zealand, Limited. It might be submitted, said Mr. Lascelles, that "house-to-house" had a limited meaning, and would be applicable only in such a case as that of a hawker who would actually go from house to house right along a street. The Crown maintained that no such narrow interpretation could be placed upon the wording of the Act. It was maintained that accused in visiting one or two people a day, as he did at their homes, was guilty of going from house to house offering shares for subscription or purchase.- In fairness, however, it had to be said that the accused had previous business dealings with the people concerned. Induced to Transfer Debentures John Harrison Campbell, a retired grocer, said in evidence that he had bought some £lO of debentures in the Investment Executive Trust, the transaction being completed in Bridgewater's office in July. The accused visited witness' house in Cashmere View Street, and induced him to transfer his interest in the Investment Executive Trust for shares in the Australasian Investment Corporation. Witness had not asked Bridgewater to call upon him. He used the premises at Cashmere View Street purely as a dwelling house. 1 Edith Mercy Chapman, married woman, said she bought Investment Executive Trust debentures in . 1934Bridgewater called on her unexpectedly in 1935 and asked her to transfer to the Australasian company, but witness refused to make the transfer. _ Cecelia Eugenie Anderson, married woman, described her dealings Wl *h Bridgewater, as a result of which she transferred £2210 of debentures of the Investment Executive Trust, receiving an equivalent amount of shares m the Australasian Investment Corporation in exchange. To Mr. H. F. O'Leary, counsel for the accused, witness said she thought she remembered receiving a letter frop} Bridgewater in which he said he would call on her. Similar evidence was given by a number of other witnesses. Legal Aspect Argued At the conclusion of the evidence submissions were made to His Honor by counsel on the legal aspect of the all* gations. For the defence, Mr. 0 Leary submitted that the actions of Bridgewater, which were admitted, did not constitute a house-to-house canvass in the sense in which the term was generally understood. He contended that there was nothing in the reading of the Statute which limited the meaning of the term to any particular type of canvass. So far as offering shares to thej public was concerned, he submitted that the shares were not offered to the general public, but to a selected group of persons—namely, people who owned debentures in a particular company and who had had previous, business dealings with the accused in the present cas» Persons had been selected at 11 different points in the city and Ashburton. and in no sense could this be construed as going from house to house. For the Crown, Mr. Lascelles contended that nothing could be more natural than for a canvasser to select the people upon whom he would call in what was generally called a house-to-house canvass. He submitted that the term did not necessarily mean going from door to door, and that some element of selection was necessary. He said that the persons selected by Bridgewater were none the less members of the public, otherwise it would be open for a man to "take down" all his friends and acquaintances, because they would not be regarded strictly ni members of the outside public. The case was adjourned until tomorrow morning, when counsel will address the jury.