Cachia v St George Bank Limited

[1993] HCATrans 218

~

.

'
.

•

IN THE HIGH COURT OF AUSTRALIA

Office of the Registry

Sydney No S27 of 1993

B e t w e e n -

SAVIOUR LAURENCE CACHIA

Applicant

and

ST. GEORGE BANK LIMITED

(formerly St. George Building

Society Ltd)

Respondent

Application for special leave

to appeal

GAUDRON J

McHUGH J

Cachia 1 9/8/93

TRANSCRIPT OF PROCEEDINGS

AT SYDNEY ON MONDAY, 9 AUGUST 1993, AT 12.47 PM

Copyright iri the High Court of Australia

MR S.L. CACHIA:	My name is Cachia, Your Honours.
MR A J. MEAGHER:	If the Court please, I appear for the

respondent. (instructed by Allen Allen & Hemsley)

GAUDRON J: Yes, thank you, Mr Meagher. Mr Cachia, you seek

leave to appear in person?

MR CACHIA:  Yes, I do, Your Honour.

GAUDRON J: Well, on what basis?

MR CACHIA:  If I could refer you to the application book. I

did state in my affidavit, that there are special
circumstances under which I apply for leave to

appeal in person. I would submit to Your Honour

that those circumstances are very compelling.

GAUDRON J:	You have made no effort at all, it seems, in respect of the current matter.
MR CACHIA:	Not in regard to the current matter, because,

Your Honour, I am certain from previous experience,

I have had legal representation in the past; those legal representatives have withdrawn their services

when they discover that I have been successful in a
matter in which professional negligence of a firm

of solicitors was proven. It is inevitable for

them to discover that because my name, as I stated
in my affidavit, is, in fact, included under
certain authorities and references in the

Solicitors Manual of New South Wales.

In a previous application for leave to appeal

to the High Court I had engaged a solicitor who

briefed counsel. One week into the application

that solicitor withdrew his services because I

refused to pay him $2000 there and then on account

of the application that he was making on my behalf.

GAUDRON J: That does not seem to deal with this case

though.

MR CACHIA:	No, it does not, Your Honour.
GAUDRON J:	You were, in fact, represented in the High Court

in another case.

MR CACHIA:  Your Honour, certainly, it does not deal with

this case. However, I consider that I was entitled

to take into account that experience because it has

involved me in litigation. I am now in litigation

with that solicitor who wanted to be paid

irrespective of the fact that he withdrew his

services and therefore he was not entitled to be

paid for those services.

Cachia 2 9/8/93

McHUGH J: But, Mr Cachia, there is a recession on at the

moment. The legal profession is affected by it and

it would be surprising if you could not find

somebody who would take this case on.

MR CACHIA:  Your Honour, I can show you some letters which I

have written to solicitors - - -

McHUGH J:  I know in your affidavit you talk about not being answered, and so on. But you have made no attempt

at all in this particular case.

MR CACHIA:  In this particular case the only reason why I

did not attempt to find legal representation was

for two reasons. First of all I had only 21 days

in which to consider the issues and make my

application; an application for leave to the

High Court takes time. If I attempted to find

solicitor, write them, wait for the reply, the 21

days would have been over.

McHUGH J: Yes, but what about after the filing of the

documents and today's date.

MR CACHIA: Given that I was certain in my mind that they

would not act for me, from previous experience,

there is, in fact 21 approaches in two previous

matters, which I made to solicitors to act for me,

and I was not successful to obtain legal

representation. Your Honours, I am well able to

present my own case. That ought to be taken into

account as well in a situation like this.	You have
seen the standard of my application - - -

McHUGH J:	I have, yes, I see it.
MR CACHIA:	Maybe it is not the usual standard, but I think

it does convey what the issues are and I have no

doubt, whatsoever, that I competently argued before

the Court of Appeal, before whom I appeared in person, and was able to present the issues, in

writing, because I believe that the written word is
far more precise than the verbal word.	I was able
to present the issues to the court.	I have been

complimented in the past by judges about the

presentations of my case.

Your Honour, why would I run into the risk of

engaging further into litigation by hiring a

solicitor. Three solicitors who have withdrawn

their services in the past from me, I ended up in

litigation over them. To me, having a solicitor is

to have a barrier between myself and the barrister.

Besides, a barrister, although he would be more competent than I am, he would not be able to devote

the time that a complex case, like this particular

case, requires. Litigation is admittedly

Cachia 3 9/8/93

expensive. Already in the primary trial I was

presented with a bill by the respondent for

$34,000 - - -

GAUDRON J:  So you have had legal representation in this

case already, have you?

MR CACHIA: For this case, no.

GAUDRON J:  You were unrepresented at all stages.

MR CACHIA: Unrepresented.

GAUDRON J: Well, in the circumstances we will hear the

merits of your application.

MR CACHIA:  Would you like me now to go to the substance of the matter?

MCHUGH J: Yes.

MR CACHIA:  Thank you. Your Honours, in order to save time

I have prepared some written submissions and given

what has been said about my application to appear

in person, I would wish Your Honours to take that
into account and look at the standard of my

submissions in this matter.	I wish to pass over
three copies.

GAUDRON J:  We will need to read these over the luncheon

adjournment, of course, but is there anything you can say by way of outline? Do you wish to direct

us to any particular aspect?

MR CACHIA:  I do not have anything to add to these

submissions here and at this stage I would reply to

anything that my opponent was to say, at a later

time.

GAUDRON J: Well, if you wish to adopt that course - - -

McHUGH J: Well, we may have some questions for you when we

read the submissions.

GAUDRON J:  We will consider these submissions over the

luncheon adjournment and resume at 2.15 pm.

AT 12.56 PM THE MATTER WAS ADJOURNED

UNTIL LATER THE SAME DAY

Cachia 4 9/8/93

UPON RESUMING AT 2.16 PM:

GAUDRON J:  Mr Cachia, we have read your submissions over

the lunch hour. Perhaps you would care to

particularize the precise terms of the contract

that you say came into existence.

MR CACHIA:  Yes, thank you, Your Honour. The contracts

under which I was entitled to buy the shares which

I ordered was, as put to the shareholders of the

State Building Society before they were asked to

vote and approve the takeover. Among the terms of

the relevant points - because there were other
points which are of no concern in this matter - was

the fact that it was put to them by way of a

statutory statement that the share issue, which was

to be made to them in consideration of their

approval, would be made on the same basis as the

share issue that was made in 1987.

GAUDRON J:  And certainly that 1987 share offer had a

qualification to eligibility to participate in the

offer.

MR CACHIA:  It has. It has some clauses which required

the exercise of discretions from the board of

directors of the St George Building Society, as it

was then. That is so. But to come back to the

terms of the contract upon which I rely, the
shareholders of the State Building Society were
also told that the share issue to them would be

made as applied and as was applicable in the share

issue of 1987. Now, in my submission,

Your Honours, the import of these words, regarding the share issue of 1988, had the effect of removing

any discretions whatsoever which the directors of

St George claimed they could exercise.

McHUGH J: Well now, how do you get to that proposition,

Mr Cachia?

MR CACHIA:  Because the share issue of 1988 was to be made

as was applicable in 1987, and therefore the

reference is made not to the offer that was made in

1987 but to the way the issue was made.

McHUGH J: Well, that could not be right, could it, because

when St George made its offer to State, back on

4 August 1988, it spoke about "on the same basis as

was offered to members of St George last year", and

it went on to say that:

The general conditions of the offer provided

for 100 shares for each $500 or part thereof e

of withdrawable shares at a price of $1.50.

Cachia	9/8/93
MR CACHIA:	Yes.

McHUGH J: Right. Well, is that not the basis?

MR CACHIA:  No, Your Honour, no, for the very simple reason

that the reference regarding the general conditions

was not a condition. It was a statement. It was a

declaration or a piece of information. It was not

a condition on which anybody could rely.

McHUGH J: But when it spoke about the general conditions,

does that not indicate what was meant by the words

"on the same basis as was offered to members of
St George". It was "as was offered" to members of
St George, not what was "issued" to members of

St George. If they had used those words, then you

might have had it - a much stronger argument - but

they used the words "offered to" rather than

"issued to".

MR CACHIA:  Your Honour, if the share issue of 1988 was to

be made as per the normal entitlement - you

understand what I mean by "normal entitlement"?

MCHUGH J: Yes, yes.

MR CACHIA:  There would not have been any need to say that

it was going to be made on the same basis. There

would not have been any need to put 14 clauses in a

prospectus. Now, I allege that in the alternative that prospectus was invalid anyway, because it did not comply with the terms and conditions of the

takeover. But the respondent want to rely on those

14 conditions contained in the prospectus. Now,

why would it be necessary to have 14 clauses, long

clauses, in a prospectus, if the share issue of

1988 was going to be made simply on the entitlement

which was 100 shares per $500 under deposit.

MCHUGH J: Yes.

MR CACHIA:  That was simple and it could have been explained

in one sentence - - -

GAUDRON J:  But you say that was meaningless. The effect of

your argument is that that was entirely

meaningless.

MR CACHIA:  I do say that, Your Honour. I say that

because - - -

GAUDRON J: Well, that is the difficulty with your argument,

is it not?	You have got to write clear words out
of the 1987 offer.	And, in effect, you claim an

offer of such number of shares, up to perhaps a

maximum, as anybody wishes to apply for. That is

what you assert, is it not?

Cachia 6 9/8/93

MR CACHIA:  Yes.

GAUDRON J: Well, that is meaningless. It is absurd, is it

not?

MR CACHIA:  No, Your Honour, it was not absurd. The offer

was very explicit. It could not, in fact, have

been more explicit.

GAUDRON J:	The offer, in your view, was, such number of shares as any shareholders wish to apply for - any
shareholders of State wish to apply for. In
effect - - -
MR CACHIA:	Provided the allotment, when it came to be made, was made in accordance with the issue of 1987. Now
what does "on the same basis as was applicable and
as applied in 1987'' mean? Nothing could be more explicit and meaningful than those words. It
simply meant that whatever was done in 1987 would
apply to this share issue.

McHUGH J: It is the offer, is it not - offered shares on

the same basis as was the offer to members of

St George last year?

MR CACHIA: Yes, I have no argument with that, Your Honour.

That is what I understand. But the offer itself,

of course, was varied before the allotment was

made.

McHUGH J:	Well, it was in your case
GAUDRON J:	Or an offer by

MR CACHIA: That is a separate issue.

GAUDRON J: Yes.

MR CACHIA: Could we come to that perhaps at a later so that

we do not get diverted from the argument.

McHUGH J: Yes.
MR CACHIA:	The share issue of 1988 was to be made as per the offer of 1987, but the offer of 1987 was waived
and varied and altered and eventually the share
allotment of 1987 was made on that varied and altered offer of 1987. There could not have been
an allotment on the offer.  The allotment followed
the variation - the alteration of the offer. In
other words, you cannot say St George in 1988 was
going to make a share issue on the offer of 1987
because that is meaningless.

McHUGH J: Sorry to interrupt you, Mr Cachia, but just could

you answer this for me. Supposing you had another

Cachia 7 9/8/93

shareholder, or depositor, or whatever you like to

call them, in State, who had also been in St George
earlier, and had taken up only 100 shares because

they had $500 and they had taken up 100 shares, now

what would you say about that person having regard

to the offer of 4 August 1988? Would that person

be bound by the 100 shares, or could that person

have as many shares as he or she applied for?

MR CACHIA: That person got in 1987 what he applied for.

MCHUGH J: Yes.

MR CACHIA: 

Therefore in 1988 he would have been entitled to

get what he also applied for, with the proviso that
what he applied for falls within the terms of

condition of the share allotment of 1987. I am not

saying that there were any terms and conditions in

1987; I do acknowledge that there was. The

directors exercised their right in that issue to

exercise certain discretions. There is - we have

to keep this very much in mind - a major difference

between the share issue of 1987 and 1988. The 1987

share issue was initially an offer from St George.

The share issue of 1988 was an offer up to the time

that the shareholders of State approved a takeover.

After that moment, after the approval, it was no longer an offer. It was open then for the shareholders of State to place their order

immediately, without waiting any - - -

McHUGH J: Well, I know that is what you say, but nobody has

accepted that in the courts below, have they?

MR CACHIA:	No.
McHUGH J:	No.

MR CACHIA: But they were wrong, Your Honour.

McHUGH J:  I understand the way you put it, but can I ask

you this: assuming that your argument was accepted

along the lines you have just put in answer to

questions, what is your answer to the difficulty

that you neither sent a cheque along with the form,

nor did you have, or did you specify, a share

account number which had the appropriate funds

in it. Now, what is your answer to that?

MR CACHIA: Yes, Your Honour. In my first order I did not

specify an account number for the reason that no

such account number was necessary.

McHUGH J:  You are talking about 1987?

MR CACHIA:  No, I am talking about 1988. I had two orders

in 1988. The order of 25 October 1988 did not have

Cachia 9/8/93

a nominated share account in it and the reason for

that was that there was no necessity to nominate a

share account. Once I placed that order I was

committed to pay for those shares.

McHUGH J: Well, I know you put that in your written

submissions and in your special leave book, but it

does not seem to me to be right that you were then

committed.

GAUDRON J: But at the end of the day, does it not come to

this, that all that is in issue is the meaning of

"an offer"; that is, a particular offer; it has

been made; it has gone; that is all that is

involved, the meaning of a particular "offer"?

MR CACHIA: Well, I suppose - in any contract - - -

McHUGH J: Well now, you would say "offer on the same

basis", would you not?

MR CACHIA:  Yes.

GAUDRON J: Yes, but it is still what does the offer mean?

What was the offer?

MR CACHIA: Exactly, that is very much an issue.

GAUDRON J:  Where is the point of general principle in that?

Where is the point of public importance in that?

It is a particular offer.

MR CACHIA:  The public importance in that regard comes in

many many ways.	In the first place the offer was
contained in the statutory statement.	The Court of

Appeal said the statutory statement is irrelevant.

The statutory statement is required by legislation;

how could it be irrelevant? I will not go to the

other points because they have not - - -

McHUGH J:  I know, but just to answer what you have just

asked rhetorically: it can be irrelevant for legal

purposes because the statement merely says what

they are going to do. That is quite different from

making an offer to the individual shareholders.

MR CACHIA:  Did not the statement contain an offer of shares

to the individual shareholders? That is how I read

it.

McHUGH J:  I know that is the way you put it, but on your

argument you could have accepted - if that

constituted an offer, then you, as a member of

State, could have accepted that offer even before

ratification. Supposing if the shareholders had

voted against amalgamating?

Cachia 9 9/8/93

MR CACHIA:  I take amalgamation in inverted commas,

Your Honour.

McHUGH J: Yes, I know what you are saying about

amalgamation, yes.

MR CACHIA:  Yes. Until the approval had taken place, nobody had any rights. The takeover had not been

approved, therefore the affair which was subject to

approval had not had force and effect. After the

is a question mark about when the approval took place, because St George also had a meeting of its shareholders on 24 August, and the shareholders, in effect, approved the takeover also, although the directors of St George had the

approval, of course, that was a different matter. again, there

right to decide for that organization, but the fact

remains that the shareholders of St George could

have stopped the takeover by their vote. However,

that is diverting a bit from the main line of

argument.

GAUDRON J:  Is there anything with respect to the public

importance that you wish to draw our attention to,

other than what is set out in your written

submissions?

MR CACHIA:  Not other than is set out in my submission, but

if Your Honours have some concern about maybe some

points that I made, like His Honour Justice McHugh

made the point about amalgamation and ratification.

McHUGH J:	I have read what you said about that, yes. those points are rather on the periphery really. The crucial point is this question of what was the	But
offer.

MR CACHIA:  They are on the periphery as regards the share

issue is concerned.

McHUGH J:  I know what you say. You say the Court of

Appeal's approach to those questions wrongly coloured its view about what actually took place.

MR CACHIA:  The Court of Appeal did not exercise its

function by giving the case its proper

consideration. They made so many mistakes at law,

even in the application of Addinell's case; a case

that they brought up themselves to prove points

against me. In actual fact, proofs point in my

favour.	Take the issue of the counter offer,
Your Honour.	They said that my order for shares

was a counter offer.

McHUGH J: Yes.

Cachia 10 9/8/93

MR CACHIA:  The respondent had even made submissions in that

regard to the Court of Appeal and probably even to

the court at first instance. If it was a counter

offer and St George accepted that, which it did,

they have accepted my counter offer, if it was a

counter offer.

McHUGH J:  Why do you say they accepted your counter offer?

MR CACHIA:  Because they performed on it. They issued me

with shares on it.

McHUGH J:  But they would say that you acted on their

letter. They sent you a letter, when, on

14 October 1988?

MR CACHIA:  A notice.

McHUGH J:  A notice, yes. And that asked you to apply on a

form.	You did not apply on a form, did you?	You
wrote two letters.	One is wrongly dated.	You

wrote two letters: on 24 and 25 October?

MR CACHIA:  One on the 25th; one of the 26th. One was an

order for shares; one was an application for a

loan.

McHUGH J: Yes.

MR CACHIA: That order, Your Honour, was placed before I

received that notice dated 14 October.

McHUGH J: Yes. They sent you the formal documents on

27 October.

MR CACHIA: Yes, the prospectus. That is the formal

document I think that you are referring to.

MCHUGH J: Yes.

MR CACHIA: Well, I received it some days after I sent in my

order. So, it could have been in November that I

received that prospectus.

McHUGH J: Just let me get this clear, Mr Cachia. Do you

rely on your letters of 25 October or the

application form on 1 November when you applied for

the 4,300,000?

MR CACHIA:  I rely on both of them, Your Honour. I rely on

my order of 25 October, and when I put in my order

of 1 November 1988, I did, in fact, at the bottom of it, refer to my order of 25 October. It was a

supplementary order.

McHUGH J: That was the document where you also nominated an

account, did you not? You nominated $330,000 from

Cachia 11 9/8/93

an account and $120,000 from a special loan

account?

MR CACHIA: That is correct, yes.

McHUGH J:  And then you said the balance would be supplied

by the loan which you had sought in your letter of

25th or 26th?

MR CACHIA: That is subject to more expansion, Your Honour,

because I did seek a loan approval from either

organizations, not just from St George. St George was slow in replying to my application for a loan,

although I based that loan application on what I

had been told. This is the evidence in the lower

court. I had made inquiries by telephone to a

St George Special Loan Division and they said that they would lend for the purpose of buying St George shares but, obviously, at a later date they

had sosme meeting and they decided that they were

not permitted to lend money for the purpose of

buying their own shares. This is probably for the

purpose of securing them for their money.

GAUDRON J: Yes. Well, that is a peripheral issue entirely

though, is it not?

MR CACHIA:  Yes.

GAUDRON J: It is all set out in the papers, yes.

MR CACHIA:  Yes, but I am coming back to the point that

money was not available in a nominated account at

the time of application.

GAUDRON J: But that, again, is a peripheral issue. The

issue is what was the offer and what does it mean?

MR CACHIA: Yes, Your Honour, yes. I say that the offer

was, as I stated earlier, that it would be made

exactly as the issue of 1987 was made - the issue,

not the offer of 1987 - because that is what we are

concerned with.

Regarding the money on application. There was

no such requirement for me to have the money on

application. The prospectus does not say that.

And it was not required in 1987 to have the money

on application. The witness which I subpoenaed, as

well as myself, stated under oath that the money

was not required to be - - -

GAUDRON J: Yes, but, again, the question of fact is further

down the track, if you like.	The question is what
was the offer and what does it mean.	The evidence

does not become relevant until that issue is

decided.

Cachia 12 9/8/93

MR CACHIA:  Yes, wrong inferences drawn by the Court of

Appeal due to, shall we say - I do not know how

delicate to put it - carelessness. I do

allege that the Court of Appeal did not exercise

their function.	I know it is a serious allegation
to make. They were careless.	The judgment of 18

pages did not do justice to a case of such

importance.

GAUDRON J: Yes. Well, we understand that point. That is

made in your written submissions too.

MR CACHIA: Is there anything else I can - - -?

GAUDRON J: Well, is there anything you would add to your

written submissions?

MR CACHIA:  I will just check. I have a list here. I did

draw your attention, Your Honour, in regard to the

privity issue.

McHUGH J: Yes. Well, you rely on the Contracts Review Act

type and what I said in West's case.

MR CACHIA: That is one point.

McHUGH J: Yes.

MR CACHIA:  I did also say that one used for insight - for

insight only - the law in regard to a section of

the Building Society Act of the United Kingdom, the

United Kingdom law gives privity to members -

shareholders - as well as offers of the

organization being taken over, specifically.

McHUGH J: That only arises if the statutory statement

contains an offer in the terms that you speak

about.

MR CACHIA:  If there is some consideration offer of any

description - it need not be shares, it could have
been money - that would have arisen.	The

shareholders had a contract in the United Kingdom by the provision that is contained within the Act.

McHUGH J: It still comes back to the point that

Justice Gaudron put to you that whether you be right or wrong about this particular point,

nevertheless, unless the statutory statement
contains an offer as you have defined it, then this

point does not matter, does it?

MR CACHIA: Well, that is right, unless the offer contains -

yes.

McHUGH J:  In the way that you have defined it.

Cachia 13 9/8/93

MR CACHIA:  An allocation of consideration, then the

privity angle is useless.

McHUGH J: Yes, exactly. That only helps you if the

statutory statement does contain an offer in

accordance with your terms, and then you can fall

back on this privity argument to enforce it.

MR CACHIA:  Yes, certainly. The breach of duty of

directors, for instance, the Court of Appeal said

there was a breach of duty of directors back in

1987. There was no evidence of that, Your Honours.

Nobody alleged that; nobody raised it as an issue.

Even by the fact of the volume of the property

which is affected by the case, it would appear that

in the past leave has been granted by the High

Court, even on that single issue, because values of this magnitude are involved running into thousands

of millions of dollars.

GAUDRON J: That is not a view that has current acceptance

though, I think, in this Court.

MR CACHIA:  I am sorry?

GAUDRON J: That is not a view that is currently applied in

this Court.

MR CACHIA:  Is that right. I did not know. Very well.

Maybe I ought to close my submissions with one

little addition. The public do have an expectation

that if they suffer a serious injury they can come

to the High Court and seek redress. This is a very

general public expectation but you hear it all the

time, "I'll appeal to the High Court". Now, in

most cases, the High Court would not entertain

special leave to be granted. But there is this

general widespread public attitude that one can get

satisfaction by going to the High Court. I do feel
that I have been hardly done by in this case.	To

my mind, the principles involved in my case are so

straightforward I should have won in the court at

first instance. I should have won then. Even on

the point of my offer being a counter offer, there

was performance on that. Performance,

part-performance, evidences the contract.

I gave you the example, Your Honours, in my

submissions about a carpenter receiving an order

for 20 chairs. He supplies two chairs. That

evidences the fact that he accepted the order. And

when he is approached to supply the remaining 18 chairs, he says, "I'm not going to supply them", does not the person placing the order have a right

to demand the fulfillment of his order in full?

Cachia 14 9/8/93

McHUGH J: It all depends what the offer was. That is the

whole point of the case.

MR CACHIA: Yes, I agree with that. There is no dispute

about that. Thank you, Your Honour.

GAUDRON J:  Thank you, Mr Cachia. The Court need not

trouble you, Mr Meagher.

The arguments which the applicant seeks to

advance in this case do not enjoy sufficient

prospect of success to justify the grant of special

leave. Special leave is therefore refused.

MR MEAGHER:  Your Honour, I seek an order for costs.

GAUDRON J: Mr Cachia, what do you say to that? Is there

anything you can say?

MR CACHIA:  I oppose the application for the reasons I

stated in my submissions. The Court of Appeal did

not give this case due consideration, otherwise we would not have been here. If they had covered the

points in my submissions, if they did not make so

many mistakes about amalgamation and ratification

and Addinell's case itself, we would not be here.

I was justified in trying to bring this matter

before the High Court.

GAUDRON J:  No, the application will be refused with costs,

as in the usual course.

MR CACHIA: With your permission, could I make a further

submission, please. This is in relation to the

refusal of the special leave.

Is it within my rights to request that my

application for leave be considered by the Full

Court?

GAUDRON J:  No, I do not think so.

MR CACHIA:  I was unlucky enough to have only two judges.

It might have made a difference if there were

three.

GAUDRON J: That happens from time to time, Mr Cachia. It

happened in another case earlier today.	It can be
done by one.

McHUGH J: But since we were both of the same opinion, one

more judge would not have made any difference

anyway, Mr Cachia. I understand how strongly you

feel about this, and perhaps a layman sees it

differently than a lawyer, but I think most lawyers

would come to the same conclusion as we have come

Cachia 15 9/8/93

in this particular matter, Mr Cachia.	I may be
wrong about that.

MR CACHIA:  You, of course, have not explained or given your

reasons why you decided in such a manner.	I have
no idea what your reasons are.

GAUDRON J:  We have dealt with it in accordance with the

ordinary custom, Mr Cachia, except to the extent

that we have extended to you the opportunity to

appear without counsel. In all other respects it

has been dealt with in the ordinary manner.	It
was your election not to have counsel. You are
entitled to no other indulgence in that regard.

The Court will now adjourn to reconstitute.

AT 2.46 PM THE MATTER WAS ADJOURNED SINE DIE

9/8/93

Cachia 16