SHARE-HAWKING APPEAL

Hawke's Bay Herald-Tribune, Issue 36, 26 February 1937, Page 13

SHARE-HAWKING APPEAL

-Prebs Aisociation.)

What Does House-to-House Mean? COUNSELS SURMliSSIONS

(Bv Teleeraph-

INVEECARGILL, Last Night. In the Supreme Court to-day, before 'Mr Justice Kennedy, Harold Calvertappealed from a conviction by the ' Stipendiary Magistrate at Invercargill, Calvert having been fined £200 on a chargq brought by John Albert Coliu | MacKqnzie, of qRering shares for subI Bcription. The appellant (Calvert) was reprejsqnted by Mr P. B. Cooke, KO. (Weljlington) and Mr G. V. Murdoch (Dun-; edin). Mr H. J. MacAlister appearedl for respondent (MacKenzie). Mr MacAlister said that the offence' charged that defendant went fromj house to house offering shares for sub-: soription to the public. Information' was lqid by MacKenzie, executor of the; estqtft of the lale W. Fleck. Defendant1 was employed by a company known as McArthur Trust Ltd., and induced Fleck and his wife to take up deben-. tureq in Investment Execufive Trust Ltd. Legislation was passed by which certain companies in which Mr J. W. S. McArthur was interested, wero qrderqd tp be W0uud up, the public trustee being appointed liquidator. McArthur Trust Ltd. was registered in Queensland and agents were appointed to endeavour to get control qf debenture holders'' interests. The methods were Simple. Debquture holders were canvagsed and endeavours made to persuade them to part with their debentures in the Investment Exe£utive Trust in exchnnge for shares in the McArthur Trust, debenture holdqrs being offered more than the fpce value of their shares. Defendant was one qf the agents in the campaign and was iargely suceessful iu inducing debenture holders to exchange their debeutuTes for shares in the McArthur Trust. He visited houses in doing so and thus eommitted a breach of section 243 of the Companies Act. After several witnesses had been heard, Mr Cooke, addressing the Court, submitted that there were four grounds on which the prosecution could not hope to succeed. They were: (1) .There was no eyidenoq of house to house canvass. (2) There wap no eyidence of any offer, (3) There was no evidence of any offering of shares for subscription. (4) ! There was no evidence of any offer [to the public. On the weight of the evidence pro:duced, he submitted that it was insuffijeient to ehow that the prosecution had dif charged the onus which rested upon it. The going by Calvert to a- total" of sqven houses constituted, accordlng to the prosecution, going from house to housq. These houses, said c'ounsel, were hundreds of miles apart. Calvert ha4 w&ited on the debenture holders with whom he had trausacted share business on a number of occasions yet thq prosecution would have the Court believe that that waa a house to house canvass. He based his submission on the ordinary meaning of the term. Calling on every alternate house would amount to & house to house canvass but uot the waiting on seven or eight persons in an areta hundreds of milea in extent. It was a well known fact that the section under which Calvert was charged had . givqn rise tq great dpal of diffieulty and there had been a good deal of comment about it. The hqaring waa adjourned till tomorrow.