COMPANY COMMISSION.

Star (Christchurch), Volume LXVI, Issue 20282, 17 April 1934, Page 12

COMPANY COMMISSION.

Action to Prevent It From Proceeding. WELLINGTON, April 16. The Full Court to-day considered an important preliminary question arising in the action to prevent the Company Commission proceeding. The question involved the admissibility of certain interrogatories which plaintiffs wished to put to two of the defendants, namely Dr Horace Belshaw and Mr F. E. Graham. Plaintiffs in the action are Timberlands Woodpulp, Ltd.; Maurice Vincent Bates, of Auckland, a licensed sharebroker and a member of the Stock Exchange, and Tung Oil Securities (N.Z.) Ltd. Defendants are the Attorney-General and Mr J. S. Barton, of Wellington, Stipendiary Magistrate, Dr H. Belshaw, a professor of Auckland and Mr F. E. Graham, of Christchurch, a sharebroker and former chairman of the Christchurch Stock Exchange. Mr Barton. Dr Belshaw and Mr Graham are members of the Commission. Mr D. K. Richmond and Mr M. 11. Ilampson (Auckland) appeared in support of the summons for leave to issue interrogatories; and Mr J. B. Callan. K.C., with Mr Rose, appeared to oppose it. Mr Richmond submitted that the relevancy of the proposed questions depended on whether a Royal Commission was a judicial tribunal or not. He submitted that it was, for the reason that writs of prohibition had been issued against such commissions in th© past and such writs could by law only be issued against judicial bodies. Mr Callan agreed that for the purpose of to-day’s argument a commission should be regarded as a judicial tribunal. Mr Richmond then stated that plaintiffs alleged that Dr Belshaw was the spearpoint of an attack against bond selling companies and investment trusts and. by reason of bias and predetermination of thought, was not a proper person to act on the Commission. Mr Graham, as a former president of the Christchurch Stock Exchange, was financially interested in the matters to be determined by the Commission and was aPo not a proper person to be appointed. Mr Callan stated that defendants objected to the questions asked in the interrogatories because, running through them, there was an attempt to find out the names of particular companies to which Dr Belshaw had referred under general headings in his writings. Similarly, the questions put to Mr Graham sought to establish that he had been hostile to a certain investment trust company. Mr Callan submitted that the interrogatories should not be used for the purpose of clearing the commercial character of certain companies. The Court proceeded to deal with the interrogatories individually and. with the exception of a few agreed to by both parties, they were deleted either by consent or by the Court as being oppressive.