MINING SHARES.

Dominion, Volume 4, Issue 941, 7 October 1910, Page 4

MINING SHARES.

,:: ; ;, JaN INTEEESTING CASE:;;;| C :...'; (By' Teleerapli.f-Press Association.),/ - ',• ' ' ~>Auckland, .October ;(i.' -• A. case of interest to. mining shareholders was "heard at the (Magistrate's Court to-day,' ; --before .'Mr.; Kettle,, S.M., when the ; New Waitekaur'i ; .Gold Mining -Com-" pan'yi Limited, sought to; recover from Ai iiyon, ; solicitor, .of. .Marion, the . sum - of ■ £1 ss. lOd. for balance 'of; the sixteenth call 'and Expenses; oil 300 forfeited snares originally held by the defendant in the company. '.Facts.admitted were that!the preliminaries in connection.with the eale .were, complied, with,:'and'. that.;the;. 300. shares of the defendant were put up for sale in one-lot. v They were not sold then; .but. during the 'same': day they ; were bunched, together -and sold.with, others,; making a parcel of 1150 shares, and real-; ised 25.9 d. the lot; ■■'-..-

In giving judgment Mr. Kettle said he' could not see that thecbmpany were doing ; any irregular act in offering the shares a second time. It appeared'that defendant .was a shareholder. "When' the call was.made for .£1 ss. he did not pay after 21 days had expired, and' thenhis shares were absolutely forfeited to the company, subject ..to. ;the redemption by! the shareholder if he chose to pay before the day advertised "for the sale, v- If -'.the! 'shares were 'sold, and realised more than the call, the shareholder was entitled to the, difference.':. On the other .hand, .'it they were not sold, according to Mr. Justice 'Edwards's recent decision, the company were; entitled to recover the; call and expenses. Now,: in this; case the shares were not! redeemed, and wero put'up; for sale: in one lot.! In "his opinion, at the moment the shares were offered the right of ;the ; shareholder to those shares was absolutely gone. The'.company could register them and reissue, and because" they choso to, sell with other, shares the shareholder was not interested; His Worship was therefore of opinion that Mr. - Justice iEdwards's; decision referred to .this case. Judgment'was given 'for the amount claimed, £1 55... 10d;, with costs,.; Leave to appeal was granted.•■ . ; . :': -;'