THE BRUCE'S MILE COMPANY CASE.

Ashburton Guardian, Volume VII, Issue 2159, 27 June 1889, Page 3

THE BRUCE'S MILE COMPANY CASE.

Judge Ward gave judgment at Timatu yesterday In a case, wfcioh ocoopled five days m hearing evidence and argument. The liquidators of Bruce'a Oatmeal Mill applied to have settled the list of oontributaries, putting m a list showing shareholders' liability £4000, while claims on the estate amount to £1700. Tne three ohlef clataes of claims ate persons (1) who had not folly paid up ou £100 shares ; (2) had taken shares m payment for property and had not registered the oontraot • (3) had tranferred shares within a year to men of straw. The most Im* pedant part of the claim, was against thirty persona, who, aa holders of aiogle shares paid up, agreed to double their liability by exchanging one paid-up for two half, paid-up shares, this agreement being oon dltlocal oo 75 per cent consenting to adopt it, The Direotors notified that the oondition was fulfilled, and tbat tbey had duplicated the scrip. Mr Read, for (be defence showed that 75 per cant was not obtained, there being one short, even coaming la four admittedly bogus transfers, for tbe purpose of making up the number, and also argued that such an agreement was ultra vires. Hla Honor? ruled tbat the agreement was illegal, and relieved the shareholders thereunder* Mr W. D. Stewart, for tbe liquidators, urged that the Direotors, ail ot whom transferred duplicated scrip, ought to be held to have ratified the dealing ; but tbe Judge said there oould be no ratification of an illegal transaction. This process being pnt iv operation, shares were also offered to the publio. Aa the subscribers understood, £60 was paid up. One was let erf beoause his receipt showed this. Others were retained on the list, as their papers showed the nominal value was £100. Two oases of abarea being taken for property were held over. A third, the name was struok off as non-reglstratlon of the oontraot not {troved. The result io far gives the iquldators only £491. Mr Stewart Intimated that he would appeal In the esse of the Directors who transferred, and m the property case.