CO129-535-5 N.I. Brewer- transcript of trial and evidence 1-1-1929 - 31-12-1931 — Page 57

556.

57

10.30 a.m. 23rd JANUARY, 1930.

MR. BREWER addressed the Jury ↑

My Lord and ventlemen of the Jury. I thought I was fully acquainted with the facts of this cas but I am indebted to the foreman of the Jury, mr Stopani Thomson, for helping me to realise a fact which had escaped me. Mr. l'homson asked "How did you persuade the Directors to sign the forme", I must confess that I don't realise the degree of thought that had inspired that question and although I answer to the best of my knowledge, by saying I thought I did it with my personality, I now realise that behind that question there is a train of reasoning Well, until yesterday I firmly believed that I had done it by personality and had persuaded them to sign for the sake of the firm. Jr. Thomson has gone further and asks "How did 1 persuade them". The arguments I used were that it would be materially to the benefit of the firm and that I was unwilling to accept the responsibility of receiving the share capital in full without an efficient Bank manager. It was apparently in respɔnse to this argument that they signed. But the queery goes deeper, "Am I sure they were con- vinced by my arguments or were they actuated by other motives", It is impossible for me to say but the thought must be considered whether they were actuated by the desire to possess full paid shares or merely to have increased capital. I think on this point I have really got at the hear of the quarry.

It is admitted by the Prosecutic that the explenation given by me in my Public Kxamination is in entire agreement with the Comp- any's books. These transactions are treated ex- actly as called for by the plan I prepared myself It is true the transactions have in fact purporte to increase the capital of the Company and the question is whether these Directors were actuated with such a motive. That would perhaps be im- portant were it not that these transactions are in themselves, and apart from the question of cash, velid and proper transactions. The mat swelling of the cash receipts was purely a bye product and by no means the escence of the trans- aotions. If that be so, then the question of the motives of the Directors who entered into the transactions would not be of such importance. might be if the cash receipts were the essence the transactions, then the point would be a very important one. We go further in the way in whi Ar. Thomser has pointed out and we come to the letter of the lot Hay. It is a cogent fact thị the purchase of $480,000.00 worth of shares was the result of instructions given at a Directors' meeting, at which I was not present. These in- structions were given by the same people who had signed the applications for loɛns. I submit, whether or not they had this idea of swelling the Capital receipta, that was not their real