§ 62. Mr. GINNELLasked the Attorney-General the date at which proceedings for fraud were commenced against the Law, Car, and General Insurance Corporation; the date at which those proceedings were stopped to await the result of the civil action by another party; whether the Director of Public Prosecutions concurred; what previous connection the liquidator had had with the directors; whether he is an officer of the Court; at what date he became aware of Fowler's 3156 malpractices; how much of the property he has found that Fowler misapplied; at what date he became aware that Fowler was about to leave the jurisdiction; at what date Fowler did leave; and why in a case of this character the Public Prosecutor allowed Fowler to escape?
§ The ATTORNEY-GENERAL (Sir Rufus Isaacs)I am not aware that any proceedings for fraud have ever been taken against this corporation, against which a compulsory winding-up order was made on the 20th December, 1910, and on the 31st October, 1911, an order was made for the public examination of some of the directors. On the 18th November, 1911, an application was made that in view of the civil action which was then pending against the directors individually, the public examination might be postponed, and an order was made adjourning it until after the determination of the action, which was heard in July, 1912, and resulted in a verdict for the plaintiff. On the 19th July, however, a stay of execution was granted at the defendant's instance by the learned judge who tried the case, with a view to an appeal, and this appeal is now pending. No public examination of the directors having preceded the civil trial, the attention of the Director of Public Prosecutions was not directed to the case until it was reported in the newspapers. I am informed that the liquidator was appointed by the Court, which must have been satisfied with his fitness. I am told that Mr. Fowler, who was dismissed from the company's service in August, 1910, left this country early in 1911, and at a time when there was no power to detain him.
§ Mr. GINNELLIs the right hon. Gentleman in a position to explain how it is that the liquidator's first report containing the disclosures which caused Fowler to leave this country did not rouse the Public Prosecutor to the necessity of detaining Fowler?
§ Sir RUFUS ISAACSFor the reason I have already indicated. There was no public examination of any kind, therefore there was nothing to call the attention of the Director of Public Prosecutions to the case. The Director of Public Prosecutions does not see every report that comes from the liquidator of a company.
§ Mr. GINNELLIs it or is it not the duty of the Public Prosecutor, when a liquidator issues a report of such a character that the person involved flies from the law, to take notice of it?
§ Sir RUFUS ISAACSAs soon as those facts are disclosed to him, certainly.