CHRISTCHURCH SYDENHAM, AND SUBURBAN BUILDING SOCIETY.

Globe, Volume XXIV, Issue 2610, 18 August 1882, Page 3

CHRISTCHURCH SYDENHAM, AND SUBURBAN BUILDING SOCIETY.

A meeting of shareholders of the Christohnroh, Sydenham, and Suburban Building Society was held last evening at Messrs W. 8, King and Co.’s furniture warehouse, Lichfield street. Present—Messrs W, 8. King (chairman), K. W. England, W. Langdown, W. Neighbours, R. McConnel, W. Williams, F. Watts, O. Bean, P. Muter, and W. L. Edge. The Chairman stated that he had received a requisition calling the meeting signed by certain shareholders. Perhaps Mr Bean, who had signed the requisition, would speak to the business arising therefrom. Mr Bean read the requisition, that it might seem strange that he should sign a requisition directly opposed to a resolution moved by him at a previous meeting of the society. The general opinion of four-fifths of the shareholders was that it would be better to wind np the society and accept a dividend of 5s 7ii in the £. He would, therefore, move—" That the resolution passed at the last general meeting of the society on the 25th of April last be rescinded.” Mr MoOonnel thought Mr Bean ought to give the reasons which had moved him to the step. Mr Bean said the only reason was that by proceeding to law the funds of the society would be reduced by 50 per cent. He thought the ohanoe of gaining the ease to be very doubtful, and if successful, although it might swell the monies of the association, still there was a risk of failure. Mr MoOonnel asked, if successful, did Mr Bean think the society would not get the money. Mr Bean replied certainly not ? It was the risk of gaining or losing the ease, and further he did not think there was any grounds for the action. Mr McConnel replied that was what ho wanted to arrive at.

Mr F. Watts seconded the resolution

Mr McOonnel challenged the directors, either singly or as a body, whether they had spread about a report reflecting upon McOonnel and Douglas in the matter of the society. Mr England said that on the return of Mr Charters he gave a written statement to the directors, which somehow oozed out. Mr McOonnel then challenged the directors severally, and Messrs Langdown and Neighbours replied in the negative. The Chairman stated he considered the contents of the documents handed the directors of the Christchurch, Sydenham and Suburban Building Society were the property of the shareholders, and they were entitled to know the contents. Mr McOonnel would ask—Had Mr King ever made a statement that they had anything to do with these things P The Chairman replied that Mr McOonnel was acquainted with the contents of those documents, Mr McOonnel would press his question. The Chairman hardly knew what it was Mr McOonnel wanted. Mr McOonnel would repeat his question.

The Chairman would dany if, if_ was any satisfaction to Mr MoOonnel for him to do so. Ho had received a groat many report* from Charters. Mr O. Bean stated that several of the shareholders had had access to these documents, and perhaps the contents got abroad in that way. Mr Mot’onnal was a shareholder, and he had never seen these documents. Mr England had spread no reports. He might have spoken on it to shareholders, who were entitled to the knowledge of the matter. Mr W. L. Edge objected to the course

taken by Mr MoOonnol. After further acrimonious discussion the Chairman detailed the circumstances connected vfith the directors sacking the advice of their solicitors. Loud calls for the resolution to be put were then made, previous to doing which the Chairman a-iked if it was wished to wind up the society. The resolution was then put and carried unanimously. Mr O. Bean moved and Mr W. Williams seconded—“ That the dividend available be accepted.” This was carried with one dissentient (Mr McOonnel.) The Chairman stated that the resolution was virtually lost, a the proxies favorable added to the show of hands represented fifty-

one votes, which carried £1906 9j 7d, whilst £2347 was required. The votes contra were uine, representing £498. He held a deed in his hand which was signed by Mr Dunbar, which deed was in accord with the resolution,

and was signed by a sufficient number to wind up the society, only they had not got the proxies of all who had thus signed. He might mention that Mr Dunbar’s prosy went contra to that gentleman's signature, Mr McOonnel had never asked for a proxy. As far as the resolution went it was of no effect.

Mr England thought there was no need of the resolution, as the deed would be sufficient if signed by enough shareholders. Mr McOonnel, as a layman, wonld say, ‘ Never mind the resolution, but stick to the deed.”

The Chairman said if it was the desire of the majority to wind up the society it could be done in a week, as it was useless keeping it open any longer. Several shareholders present affixed their signatures to the deed, after which the meeting was brought to a conclusion by a vote of thanks to Mr King, it being generally understood that the society be wound up with as little delay as possible.