FRAUD ALLEGED

Gisborne Herald, Volume LXX, Issue 21113, 5 June 1943, Page 4

FRAUD ALLEGED

COMPANY DIRECTORS ASSIGNEE SEEKS BAN SUPREME COURT SUIT O’.A.) CHRISTCHURCH. .Tune 5. Ti'.e i 1! i;■ i .'e.l-'n nt !..•■ Line - 1 Now Zealand uu;k ; r .; iur. nil! i i n o 4Ai; r ■in : ’’ . : '.‘ini. i C'SC;! I'll U I';’;•>!n I.y ; !)f <;iI:-n;;1 . inure. \yn ■■ ;■- Su.'i nine l Yah l i >l ('fin: ■ in:]■ ■.i ■ nnU'u:; ■ v i“ :'n •' Mr. >1 h.'iice Annini.' i. 'i i:e di r-‘tifi:.mu wei'e A Iherl Adam V/i! on. .• :lnn!nr. ol • i ;>:>r!. ;i!’i Amn'.'v.- li, *; = •>•. !:n:r:o. T.m----i-.--s.il !ni viriy :w. -o d ■ urn!. of !; ■ PO ,n i Con! A.in. n l.iuni' -• On |fil;! i(YU°:i, I . V. ! : . h !'■■■'■' i)' •on U'U'iO uho (j-.iilii.:; : n unm c,s 01 linn Fuller 1 1 i;■ 0 i.■ I. \tL (' i • I' * n,. '.n;!. n V. ifo I iV.> CYiU.' i'n'ijU O'n.n On.o u.’Y, ‘fie .a e■ r! i e ervi-d .1 nvOn'Un. .■.in \. \V. liu!u.v!i nnuonre;! in sihi--o(ii i. (; : 1 ;iUj ■ii n 1 . ion (or i 1:0 Oi!in n in no' i ihF ; li'i-.-i !I !iqukiah w ul t!»o company'. Con mol nuked for on order directing that Wilson and Huffier should not. without they leave of flue court, be dircetrrs of. or. in any way. whether direct i.y or indirectly, concerned or take part m the management of a company for a. per: or. not exceedin'.’: live years from Auer :t G, 1942. This was moved on the ground that the official assignee f.ao made a further report under the Act and had staled that, in his opinion, fraud had been, committed by the defendants in the promotion or formation of this company also since its formation. Mr. C. S. Thomas and Mr. E._ S. Bowie appeared for Wilson and Air. W. I?. Lasccllcs and Mr. IL M. 8. Dawson represented Funter. Unless fraud had' boon proved, said Mr. Thomas, the court had no power to act. It was insufficient to prove negligence or mudcUement.. The onus cf proving that Wilson had been .guilty of fraud was on they official assignee and that, counsel submitted, had not been done. •'Your Honour, in this report by the official assignee, it is asked to infer many things which have not been based on evidence, said Mi'. Thomas, Mr. La-welles. on behalf of Hunter,

Mso submitted that his client had not been associated with any fraud. Hunter, he said, was a farmer, and 'his .had been his first venture m company promotion, it was Questionable how far such a man could bo held responsible concerning the !c ■ : ■ nical preparation of the. prospectus, particularly on its legal side.