CONSPIRACY ALLEGED.

Sun (Christchurch), Volume III, Issue 869, 22 November 1916, Page 10

CONSPIRACY ALLEGED.

SENSATIONAL AUCKLAND CASE SHAREHOLDERS AND DIRECTORS. (Special to The Sun.] AUCKLAND, November 21. A case of considerable interest in business and financial circles was set down for hearing before his Honour Mr Justice Hosking at the Supreme Court this morning, in which the Dominion Mortgage and Finance Company, Ltd., seeks to recover €BIOO damages from Arthur Cleave, A. Cedes, F. F. Dobson, George Abbott, and J. J. Sutherland. Plaintiffs also seek for a decree setting aside a certain agreement. The plaintiffs were represented by Mr 11. P. Richmond and Mr W. D. Anderson, while Dr. H. Dean Bamford represented the Dominion Financiers, Ltd.. and Messrs J. R. Heed, K.C., and R. McVeagh the defendants Cleave, Kccles, and Dobson. Mr A. F. Skelton appeared for Abbott and J. .1. Sutherland. In applying for a postponement of the trial Mr Skelton said that most serious allegations were made against Abbott and Sutherland, who were charged with fraud and attempted conspiracy. The sum involved was €B4OO, and the charges themselves were so serious that he submitted that his clients should have every opportunity of having their evidence heard. His Honour: Is Mr Abbott a resident of Auckland?— Yes. His Honour: He does not seem to think much of the seriousness of the case. The judge read the following cable from Abbott: "Willing to give evidence or appear either at present court or the Appeal Court, and if better chance press adjournment, otherwise don't. Surely others' actions will refute deceiving. Excuse me being unable to attend owing to urgent business which was unknown to me when I left." His Honour commented: That does no! sound like the realisation of a man whose reputation is at stake, together with I*Bloo. Mr Richmond went on to explain that Abbott was present at a meeting of shareholders in July when a resolution was passed authorising proceedings against the directors. Abbott left immediately afterwards for Australia before notice of the action was served upon him; He left under a passport, as a result, he understood, of a doctor certifying that a change of air would benefit his health. (Laughter). The passport expired on October 5. The Crown Law Office hail been warned that the passport had expired, and "Abbott knew perfectly well that if he returned to New Zealand he had not the remotest chance of getting out again.

A provisional adjournment was granted till December 6 in order that Ihe solicitors of the defendant Abbott might inform him that his evidence could not be taken in Sydney and that if he wrs to give evidence he must attend the court in New Zealand on December G. The costs of the adjournment, including witnesses expenses incurred, counsels' and court fees, and disbursements, were ordered to be paid bv Abbott.

Mr Reed asked his Honour "to order that pending the hearing of the caseno statement of claim should be published. He urged that his clients had already suffered grave injustice by the publication some time ago of the statement of claim, which pub-

lication, he submitted, was contempt of court.

His Honour: It is, of course, an exparte statement and if it is erroneous the newspaper is responsible for publishing an erroneous slatemen!. I have always understood it to have been treated by the court as improper for the proceedings in a statement of claim and defence to be published before they have been heard. This course mav not only seriously injure the defendants but it may also affect a fair hearing of the mailer. Mr Heed thanked the judge for the ruling.