LEES FERRY GOLD DREDGING COMPANY.

Greymouth Evening Star, Volume XXXI, 1 April 1901, Page 4

LEES FERRY GOLD DREDGING COMPANY.

Tho first annual general meeting of shareholders in the above was held at Dunedin last week. Eight shareholders were present. The chairman of directors (Mr W. G. Somerville) prided. Too balance-sheet showed ihat during the .year tho preliminary expenses (including brokerage) £VM 7 a 6'D worn 0212 11a 3,1; salaries .CSS 15s; and directors’ fees, Cod; other chargor bringing tho total expenditure up to £383 13s lid.

The Chairman, in moving tho adoption of tho report and balance-sheet, said tho directors did not think it advisable to go on with the building of a dredge until the Grey River had proved itself to bo a payable dredging area. Mr Lerjon visited the claim towards the end of last year, and on his return said that he considered it was desirable tho company should proceed by putting down bores in the c'aim to see if it was payab'y auriferous and to find out to what depth it would bo necessary to dredge. By an oversight Mr Chester’s report on the boring was not printed along with tho annual report, but it had appeared in fuT in the Press. In answer to Mr W. Howes, tho Chairman said, that the cost of the boring operations conducted by Mr Chester was £Td 13s 3d. There was also a sum of £3 for hire of plant. The depth of tho bores were No. 1. 30ft Bin ; No. 2,16 f", when a large boulder was encounterd; No. 3,82 it Ilia ; No. 4,30 ft 2in. Mr Howes also askod when Mr Easton was elected a director, and informed by chairman that it was on tho 11th of March last.

On the motion of Mr Howes, seconded by Mr Easton, the report was amended to show that Mr Easton was elected a director on that date. The report was appended and the balance-sheet was ad* opted. Mr Howes moved that Mr Martin Pearce and himself be elected directors. He moved in this direction at the request of a large number of people who had sent proxies to him. They thought the suggestion to liquidate the company was “ too previous. ” If it did not turn out favorable, however, then the step now proposed should be taken—Mr Easton proposed the re-election as a director of Mr Somerville. If tho company was to be wound up this step would save expense. The Chairman proposed tho re-election of Mr Easton as a director. —A vote was taken, resulting in Messrs Howes and Pearce being elected directors. The voting was ; Howes, 3,985 votes ; Pearce, 3,985; Easton, 300; Somerville, 300. Mr Howes said it was not his wish to seek a seat ou the directorate, but it had been pointed out to him that the company’s affairs should not bo in the hands of people who had predestined it to death and burial. Mr T. Chalmer was reelected auditor.

Mr Easton said he wished to lodge a protest. This company was floated by Messrs Cook and Gray in March last. The prospectus described the claim as a good dredging area, and the public were recommended with confidence to invest their money in it. Mr Chester, who had just inspected it, and who was for many years in the emp’oymeLt of Mr W. R. Cook, condemned the area, and said it was absolutely valueless as a dredging claim. This was the position of affairs at the end of twelve months. On behalf of himself and other shareholders, he wished to enter a strong protest against the charge» made for nursing the company for a period of twelve months, at the end of which time they were told the claim was absolutely useless as a dredging area. In the face of that report, it was the duty of the shareholders to make a united stand, and ask the late directors—Messrs Leijon, Cook, and Sommorville —to return half their fees, the secretary haff his salary, and Mr Cook half of the brokerage. No one would have objected to the charges in the balance-sheet if there had been any actual work dona to further the interests of the shareholders. He might add that it the company were not liquidated, it was his intention to go to Wellington and place the whole of the correspondence, together with the deed of sale from one Mr Taylor to Mr Cook, before the Hon. J. G. Ward and the Minister of Mines. Considerable discussion ensued as to Mr Easton’s position, as to how ho became a shareholder, as to certain borings, and the conduct of business. The protest was then recorded in the minutes.

An extraordinary general meeting of the company was then held to consider the f jllowingjresolution: —“That the company be wound up voluntarily under the provisions of the Companies Act, 1883, and Its amendments,”—lt was moved by the Chairman and Seconded by Mr Easton—“That the directors submit Mr Chester’s report to Mr Don, who originally reported on the claim, and ask him to report to them if he has altered his opinion on the claim since making his report, and in case he is still satisfied that the claim is a good one that they take further steps to have the claim proved. That if, on the contrary, he reports against the claim, another meeting be called for the purpose of considering the position of the company.” In reply to Mr Easton, the Chairman said the following were the names of the vendors, together with the shares they held: —Joseph Taylor,. 520 : C. T. A. Broad, 120 ; 0. Kay, 120; E. W. Cook, 210 ; John Gill, 200 ; W. E. Cook, 800 : total 2,000. Mr Martin Pearce seconded the amendment, which was carried.