COMPANY CASE.

Star (Christchurch), Volume LXVI, Issue 20285, 20 April 1934, Page 7

COMPANY CASE.

Functions of Commission Discussed. DEFENDANTS’ SUBMISSION. Ter Press Association. WELLINGTON. April 20. The Full Court continued the hearing to-day of what has come to be known throughout the Dominion as the “ company commission case.” The plaintiffs arc the Timberlands Woodpulp, Ltd., Maurice Vincent Bates and Tung Oil Securities (New Zealand), Ltd. The defendants are the At-fornev-CGeneral and Mr J. S. Barton, of Wellington, stipendiary magistrate. Dr 11. Belshaw, a professor, of Auckland University College, and Mr F. E. Graham, of Christchurch, sharebroker. Mr Barton, Professor Belshaw and Mr Grahrm are the members of the commission appointed by the GovernorGeneral. Mr D. K Richmond and Mr M. H. Ilampson (Auckland! appear in support of the summons, and Mr J. B. Callan, K.C., with Mr Rose, oppose it. Opening the case for defendants. Mr Callan made the following three main submissions:— 1— “ That a writ of prohibition did not lie against the commission appointed under the Commissions of Inquiry Act or against any of the members thereof, provided such commission was (as this commission was) one merely of inquiry.” 2 That matters into which this commission was directed to inquire were all within Section 2 of the Statute in two w r avs, (a) as being questions concerning the working of an existing law, namely, the law regulating companies and Stock Exchanges, and (b) as being questions regarding the necessity or expediency of proposed legislation.” 3 “ That there was nothing in Professor Belshaw’s views and opinions or in Mr Graham’s past or present positions or views to justify judicial interference with either of them, or with the commission of which they were members.” In support of the first submission, Mr Callan contended that there was no precedent for the issue of a writ of prohibition to a merely inquiring body, as distinguished from one which made decisions directly affecting rights. There was no English authority justifying the view that prohibition would apply to a commission whose duty was only to inquire. New Zealand cases, in particular Cock and others v. the AttorneyGeneral and another, had been cited to show that writs had been issued time and again against such commissions. He submitted that the commission in Cock’s case was of an entirely different kind from this one and attackable, when this one was not, and that, apart from the question of costs, the two cases were entirely distinguishable. “ Either prohibition will be or it will not be,” said the Chief Justice, Sir Michael Myers. There may be some other remedy, but you will have some difficulty in showing that prohibition will be against some commissions and not against others.” Mr Callan proceeded to distinguish other New Zealand decisions relied on by the plaintiffs 1 ’ case. (Proceeding.)