CLAIM FOR RETURN OF SHARES

Hawke's Bay Herald-Tribune, Issue 82, 23 April 1937, Page 6

CLAIM FOR RETURN OF SHARES

Telegraph— PresB Association.)

Control By Mr. McArthur Denied DEFENCE STATEMENT

(By

CHRISTCHURCH, Last ragj,u Whether the Australasian Investment Corporation, a Christchurch company, was working in association with com^ panies controlled by J, W. S. McArthur, was the prineipal question raised during the hearing of the evidence in the claim against tne company which was continue d to-day in the Supreme Court before Mr, Uustice Kennedy. The ciaim, which was. brought by George herbert Elliott, of I'aixnerSton North, was for the return of shares of a'nominal value of £600 which had been transferred from the Investment Executive Trust Company of N.ew Zealand to the dei'endant company. He also ciaimed £240 in aividends on those shares received by the defendanjt company from the Public Trustee and £60 paid in cash at the time of the fransf er. ' The claim is the iixsj; oi % series of 18 involving £14,420. Mr. H. F. O'Leary, for the defence, said O. A. Bridgewater had jnformed McArfthur that he would not go to Sydney because his action might be misconstrued. McArthur had suggested that Bridgewater should meet - Dr. Louat, the McArthur company 's counsel who was.going to New Zealand for a holiday. Dr, Louat came to New Zealand early in January, 2936, and he and Bridgewater came to the conclusion that some arrangements should be made so that there would be no competition between the companies they represented in the purchase of assets held by the Public Trustee. There was absolutely no arrangement whereby any control could be exercised by McArthur over Bridgewater and his company, Mr. O'Leary contended that what Bridge--water had in mind was to. avoid control by McArthur, This he did or thought he did and there was no question of fraud. Osmond Arthur. Bridgewater gave "evidence and the hearing was adjoumed till to-morrow.