MR BRAUND'S APPEAL.

Gisborne Times, Volume XXII, Issue 1796, 29 June 1906, Page 3

MR BRAUND'S APPEAL.

'(Par Press -Asisooiation.) Wellington, yesterday. In the Appeal Court, Mr Braund, continuing his argument, contended that the order made by Mr Justice Cooper at Dunedin on May ‘2nd finally dissolved the co operative existence of the Colonial Bank, and from that date the official liquidator became functus otlicio, and the hooks were in his keeping as a trustee of the Court. He asked the Court to rule whether the books were in the custody of the Court, as it was of great importance to the interests lie represented. lie stated he was an equitable owner in shares of the Colonial Bank, and attorney for a number of shareholders, whom he said had been ruined hr the Bank. He contended that section 2.">2 of the Companies Act-, 1902, showed it was the intention of the Legislature that the books of a com-

pany should be preserved for live years after the completion of liquidation, so that if there were cases of fraud, they could bo investigated. Braund contended that the late liquidator had |no right to retain the books ; they should be in the hands of the Registrar of the Supreme Court. He contended that he (Braund) had status as a beneficiary owner, as lawful attorney of a registered owner, and a member in equity. It was the duty of the Appeal Court to see that lie was not cheated of his rights by reason of improper conduct on the part of the banking company. Mr Justice Denuiston : Tlicu you must apply to lie made a contributor. Mr Braund : I cannot now, and am I therefore without remedy Mr Justice Denuiston : It seems so. Mr Braund had not concluded his argument when the Court adjourned for lunch.

THE APPEAL DISMISSED,

.(Per P*ess Association.)

Wellington. lasi night la the Colonial Bank bocks oaso in the Appeal Court, tbs Chief Justice, Justice Denuiston, and Justice Chapman gave separate verbal -judgments on the point as to whether a person who was not a shareholder, and not contributary to the company, had power to intervene in the matter of the liquidation. All the judges were of opinion that Braund did not possess the status he olaimed; that in faot the shares he olaimed to possess were Btill possessed by Mr C Fraser. The question was not one of procedure of praotioe at all (said Mr Justioe Chap* man). It was a quostion whether Brauod had conferred upon him by the statute under whieh the Court was ao'.ing the authority wbioh he asserted he had, and

whether the Canrl of Appeal had con

forred upon it by some statute the ■ authority whioh appellant asked it to j exeroiae. r-- The Chief Justice intimated that the appeal was dismissed with modified costs (thirty guineas). "" Mr Braund said he would like to ask whether the Court would give leave to appeal. The Chief Justice said ha did no) see that ths Court had power. Thore must be £IOO in dispute, The Court dooidod to hear Mr Braund further to-morrow.