BRITISH BUDGET

Waikato Times, Volume 119, Issue 19889, 19 May 1936, Page 7

BRITISH BUDGET

WAS THERE A LEAKAGE? EVIDENCE BEFORE TRIBUNAL. i SOME INSURANCE TRANSACTIONS. J Press Assn.—Elec. Tel. Copyright. (Received May 19, 11 a.m.) LONDON, May 18. The tribunal set up to inquire into the alleged leakage of Budget information continued its siltings to-day, Sir Samuel Porter, Judge of the King's Bench Division, presiding. Bernard Davis, stockbroker, gave evidence that he lunched with Sir Alfred Butt at his office on April 21. Sir Alfred said he thought that an increase in the income tax was certain owing to re-armament, and instructed witness to sell large amounts of shares. Sir Alfred's son came in and said a lot of income tax risks were being covered, adding that Barry—“Camrose I suppose”—had covered a lot the previous day. Sir Alfred instructed witness to take out from £2OOO to £3OOO worth, and later telephoned saying that he expected a tax and wanted to go “bear” in tea shares. Witness, however, dissuaded him. Sir Alfred Butt emphatically denied that he had ever received Information from Mr J. H. Thomas or any other Minister relating to possible changes In the Budget. Sir Alfred said he had been insuring against contingencies of various kinds since 1931. When he saw Mr Thomas on Budget day their two or three minutes’ conversation related solely to horse-racing. The Budget was not mentioned. “Mr Thomas always liked to discuss racing with me, and have a wager on what I told him,” said Sir Alfred. When witness told Mr Thomas that his son’s name was being connected with Budget rumours Mr Thomas was very upset and said: “What a damned stupid rumour. Les would not do a-thing like that, lie has not said a word to me about it.” “A Good Gamble.” Sir Alfred disclaimed any joint transactions with Mr Thomas, but recalled meeting Mr Thomas on a racecourse last year, when he said: ”Jim, I think I have done a good gamble lo pay my election expenses. I’ve insured witli Lloyds, and they will pay if an election is held this year a premium of about 30 per cent. Why don’t you have a gamble?” Mr Thomas said: "All right. I will gamble to the extent of insuring £1000.” Sir Alfred’s son arranged the business, and after the December election Sir Alfred sent Mr Thomas a cheque for £IOOO, less £367 premium. Counsel, interposing on behalf of Lord Camrose and Lord Kemsley, said that neither they nor their families had the slightest interest in Budget insurance. The judge said there was not a shred of evidence of it.