SHARE-HAWKING TRIAL

Hawke's Bay Herald-Tribune, Issue 30, 19 February 1937, Page 5

SHARE-HAWKING TRIAL

Presa. Asapciation.)

Jury Fknds Bridgewater Not Guttty OUT 15 MINUTES

(By- Telegr»ph—

CHRISTGHURGH, This Day. , A verdict of abt guIToy waa returned this morning at the trial of Gsmond Arthur Bridgewvatef pn 11 charges of share-hawking. The iury was absent 15 minutes, In summing up Mr Ju.atice North.. crqft said that ^bei. sectip.U of the Companies Act under which Bridgewater W»s charged djd not make it an offenco to carry on share, transactioUs jn dwelling housea and, if it were so intended, then it was most unhappjly worded 'ud only prohibited going from house to house to, offer shares to the public or members of the public, Earlier. evidence wes given by the following witnesses: Edith Mary Chapman, a married woman, said she bought Investm.ent Executiye Trust dehentnres in 1934. Bridgewater called: on her: nnex^ectedly in, 1935 and asked her to transfer to an Australasian. cbmpany^ but witness refused to make the tran'sfer. Cecelia Eugeniq Anderson, married woman, described her dealings with Bridgewater as a restdt of- whieh she transferred £2210 of dehentures of Investment Executive Trust, receiving an equivalent amount of shares in the Australasian Investment .Corporation in exchange. To Mr p'Leary witness. said she thought she remembered receiving a letter from " Bridgewater in which he said he would call on her. Similar evidence was given by Elizabeth Ati.n Morton, Robert Isaae Peters, William Gilmour- -Bruce, James Melntyre Russell, Ralph Trevor Buchanan, Jekyll Ivy Steele Robsoa and William Neeve., • At the conclusion of the ^ evidence, submiesions were made to his Honour by counsel on, the legal aspect of the allegations. For the defence, Mr O'Leary shbr mitted that the actions. of Bridgewater which were admitted did not consfitute a houserto-house, canvass. He contended that there was nothing in the statnte which limited the term to any partieular type of canvass. So far ais offering shares to the publie was concerned, he snbmitted that the. shares were offered to a selected group of persons, The perspns had been selected at different points in the city and Ashburton and in no sense could tbis be construed as going from house to house. For the Crown Mr Lascelles contended that nothing could be more natnral than for a canvasser to select people upon whom he would Call in what waa generally Called a honse-to-house canvass. He submitted that the term did not necessarily mean going from dqor »to door and that some element of selection was necessary. He said the persons Jseleeted by Bridgewater were none the less members of the public, otherwise it would be open for a man to "take down" all his friends and acquaintanees, because they would not be regarded strietly as members of tbe 3 outside publie.