DISTRICT COURT.

Evening Star, Issue 3888, 10 August 1875, Page 2

DISTRICT COURT.

Tuesday, August 10. (Before His Honor Judge Bathgate.)

Gregg and Others v. The Shotover Gold Mining Company (Limited).—This was an application to have the names of complainants struck off the Company’s registered roll. Mr Stout appeared for plaintiffs, and Mr Smith defended.—Mr Stout said that the points relied on in these cases were of great importance to gold mining companies. In Joint Stock Companies there was no limitation of time in the recovery of calls due: they might be recovered at any time, the Act giving the company power to sue. Under our Mining Act a proviso is made for unpaid calls on shares, the shares becoming forfeited after the calls had remained unpaid for a certain time. The policy of the Legislature was this : after a mining speculation had become unpayable the company should bo wound up ; it did not encourage a company going on after it was found to be unpayable, and for the purpose of getting calls out of the shareholders. The Act provided that mining shares should be recovered at the suit of the company’s manager; otherwise a party sued might contend that he was a partner. If, however, the manager did not sue within fourteen days of the calls falling due, the shares became forfeited and should be sold; and therefore complainants asked that their names be struck off the roll, otherwise the company might make other calls, and these, if sued for within fourteen days, might be recovered. If the shares were not forfeited a man might get rid of Lo or L 4, owing to the lapse of time for suing ; and in the event of a rise in the price of shares, he would be entitled to equal advantages with the other shareholders, owing to bis name being kept on the register. This unfairness was never intended by the policy of the Legislature. He also contended, on behalf of some of the complainants, that they had never accepted the transfer of shares, and that although their names ap-

peared on the register they ought not to have been there.- - :rom the evidence of the company’s manager (Mr M. W. Hawkins) it appeared that all the complainants had not signed the acceptance of the transfer of shares, —Mr Smith submitted that the right of forfeiture should not be exercised while any other rights giving the company power to compel shareholders to pay the calls survived. Mr Stout then submitted that so far as tho complainants M'Giashan and Dunning were concerned their names must be erased from the register, their being no proof of their acceptance of the shares.— ;vfr Smith admitted this, and the names of these parties were ordered to be struck off the register of the Company. Judgment in the matter of the others was reserved.