INVESTMENT TRUST

Timaru Herald, Volume CXL, Issue 20283, 5 December 1935, Page 10

INVESTMENT TRUST

PROPOSAL TO TAKE OVER ASSETS IDEA ABANDONED Bs Telegraph— Press Association WELLINGTON, December 4. A denial that J. W. S. McArthur had any knowledge of the proposal to form a company to take over from the Public Trustee the assets of the Investment Executive Trust of New Zealand, in liquidation, was made on his behalf by Mr W. Perry, before Mr Justice Blair to-day. Mr Perry, who received his instructions by cable, was given leave to mention the matter when Mr Justice Blair was about to resume the hearing of an application by William Henry Bracjy, of Auckland, for permission to convene a meeting of the Trust Company’s debenture holders, to consider the scheme. After Mr Perry had been heard, Mr P. Cleary, who appeared for Mr Bracey in place of Mr H. P. Richmond, intimated that a decision had been made not to proceed with the summons. Mr Justice Blair accordingly dismissed the application, but made no order as to costs. ‘‘This morning,” said Mr Perry, "I reeieved a cable message from McArthur, in which appear the following words: ‘The statement that the application to the Court was inspired by the McArthur Trust is untrue. The company has no knowledge of the proposal before the Court other than the newspaper reports.’ ” His Honour said that that coincided with the position put by Mr Richmond. The position, said His Honour, was that it claimed that the Queensland Company had been acquiring a number of debentures in the New Zealand Investment Executive Trust and that McArthur was interested in the Queensland Company. Mr Perry said it was true that the Queensland Company had acquired a substantial portion of the debentures totalling, he thought, about £84,000, but he did not know what McArthur’s holdings in that company were. His Honour: What I said to Mr Richmond was that if Bracey's application were acceded to, then in order to get the position clarfled it would be necessary to have the votes represented by thes Queensland shares put in a separate category. Mr Perry: McArthur further complains that according to the Press reports the statement made in Court that people were being ruined by him at the time of the special legislation, which he claims is contrary to the proved facts. He protests against this suggestion being made in proceedings to which he is not a party. His Honour; I do not know so much about that. It is difficult to avoid some reference to the circumstances which were deemed to justify the passing of the special legislation to wind these companies up, and some reference of course was made to that phase of it. Mr Perry said the last thing McArthur complained about was that counsel for the Public Trustee was reported to have said that he was astonished that people still trusted him (McArthur). He complained that the statement was made at proceedings to which he was not a party. In answer to Mr Perry, Mr E. P. Hay, for the Public Trustee, said that so far as any statement made by him at the hearing of the summons was concerned, he did not retract any word of what was said. While McArthur had perfect liberty to intimate his view to the Court as he had done, it was still considered by the Public Trustee that he had a very definite association with the scheme and a very definite interest in it. His Honour then explained to Mr Cleary that so far as the scheme was' concerned it seemed to him to be in embryo, and it would have the effect of tying up the operations of the liquidator for a period of nine months. There were other features of the sheme which were unusual and obviously required amendment. Mr Cleary said he understood that these matters had been considered by those who had been supporting the scheme, and the result of their consideration was that they had decided not to proceed with the summons. This decision had been influflenced by the limited resources those who supported the scheme had at their control. Under the circumstances the only thing to do was to ask that the summons be dismissed.