THE HOKITTKA RIVER GOLD DREDGING COMPANY.

Press, Volume LX, Issue 11489, 23 January 1903, Page 3

THE HOKITTKA RIVER GOLD DREDGING COMPANY.

The third annual meeting , of the Hoiitika River Gold Dredging , Company was held yesterday. Mr O. Ktftg, chairman of directors!, presided, aa:d there were seven shareholders present. The directors' report for the year ending ■November 30th 1902, referred to th* decision, arrived at by the shareholders u> ama*gjamate witih. the Bellevue Company, end to- remove the dredge to tho tatter compuiy's claim. The contracture for 4!be iremov*l of the dredge had undertaken "to commence dredging.on June let. Mr Gr. King retired irdro the directorate in accordance with tho Articles of Association, but was eligible, and offered himself ior Te-etectioTi, 13w balance-sheet showed that during the year the gold produced was valued at £3710 ss. The balance to the credit of *be profit and Jose account was £35 9a 6d, and there w«e a debit balance at the bank of £205- 8s 3d. Th* Chairman moved the adoption of the report and balance-sheet. Mr Hobun seconded -the motion, pro forma, and suggested reductions in certain items of expenditure, es tihe company wae practically in liquidation—β-t least co many of the shareholders considered it. The Chairman denied that the company we* either bankrupt, or in liquidation. The motion was agreed to. Tie Chairman sasd he regretted thai there was Tjot a laTSfer attendance, tnd the absence of .shareholders was either an evidence of confidence, in the directorate or indifference in the matter —'he hoped the former was the case. Aβ to 3fr Hcban's etatement that tl« company wee practically bankrupt »nd in liquidation, he #*id he had heard nothing but commendation ol the directors' actions since the stoppage e»f operatioie. Had the company gone into liquidation at the period mentioned lie- did not think thtft shareholders would hare got 9d per ebare; row ttere were buyers «i 2a 6d. This wae the best proof TsossJble liat the company was not in liquidation. The claim the dredge w«a ■bp,'»> 2 TCTored +o Tiad bf«n well prospected, and persons who had even it spoke highly of it. He was sorry to hear that eom-e ebareholdere coneideral tie oomp«ny <wa» in. liquidation; 'he, Aim)«elf, lied not teard iAytJiing. o.f tie eort, "bat on_ th« contntrr tho dtreotora had been «ny?r»tuliated upoa their eStorts to cave tHe c«sh of the enarehclders. Mr Hoban mored:—"That it be a- recommendation to the directors that the directors' f«ea (£100) be rethicecj br one-half. «nd tbat the eecretsry's eaUry and the auditor's fees be rednoed by one-hajf." . < ' The Chairman pointed out that the directors bod been drecussiug the queatwm of tbe reduction of the expenece in connection with the management of tbe company. He *urgested that the matter migit weH be left in tneir handa- ' Dr. JeniuEg* «*coßd«d the motion pro form*; end eaid the director* fead diecuiscd &c eopointment of % eab-oommiitee,- coneiating of tht> Ch«irm*n *nd maotiter directer, tc conduct the company'e buein-ess. until opetatioae were weumed; diiector** raeeJdnfe only to b* he!* wbea scettew of importance were <o be de«le with. Hβ pointed out that the •ecretaij't «thuy »» jwtwent wie £15, ud ft

reduction of one-half would be a. small amonnt to pay him considering tie work he had to do. Mr Hoban said the Company would haveto bdrrovr the money to pay salaries and fees. He also contended that the secretary wss interested in the succe-ee of tho Belie V«e Company, us he wrs one of the vendors. Tho Cha-irmaa etated that there were to vendorn in the Belle Vue Company. The sexrretsry said that ho was not a vendor in th? company, although he hsd purchased 123 shares in it. and had it not been that, ho wished to ccc the Hokitika Company (in which he was a:so » sharehoMer , ) a success, he would not have bought shares in the Belle Vue Compsny. The motion was negatived. The secretary announced that Mr King, be-ing th» only person nominated, was reelected a director. Mr Hoban objected, and said he -did not think Mr King was entitled to act ?s director, as he was d«rivin? benefit from the contract entered iato between the Hokitika Company and the Belle Vue Company. ,aa he waa also chairman of directors of lastnamed company. The Chairman pointed out th-*t'-he did not enter into the contract, which was one between the shareholders of the two companies. Sir Hoban said thnt at the meeting of the Hokitika River Company, at which the amalgamation waa agreed upon. Air King had s;ud that ho ■sfaa a vendor in the Belle Vue Company. The Chairman denied this, and elated tbnt thero wexo no vendors ia connection vrllh the Belie Vue Company. Mr Hoban, said that Mr Kingr. in hi.» position r. s chairrn-an of both companies, the interests of the two conc-erns might clash. The Chairman said ho must rule Mr Hoban out of order. Mr Hoban—"l claim my right to epcak.' The Chairman—"lf you wanted a different chairman you should have nominated someone before,the nominations closed." Mr Hoban remarked fiat it wag not a bit of good a shareholder protesting. The whole concern would be run by the Belle Vno Company, the chairman of which was the chairman of the Hokitika River Company, and shareholders mi!?ht. -as \yc!l throw their money in -the fire. Ho pointed cut that if the "j Bcrcs io be worked by the Hokitika Riyor Company proved vaiue'eea the Belle Vuo Company would possc&s the dredge. At this point some personal remarks were eirrbanscd between the Chairman and Mr Hoban. Mr Kins; was then declared re-elected, Mr Hoban asking tho secretary to note that he protested against his election. Mr R. O. Ditrican was re-appointed auditor. On tho motion of Dr. Jennings, it was agreed—"That the directors be asked to use every pomsible economy in the future management of the company, moro particularly with Tegaid to the payment of salaries and lees." The meeting then terminated.