A SHARE TRANSACTION

Hokitika Guardian, 23 June 1923, Page 1

A SHARE TRANSACTION

SUPREME COURT ACTION. AY ELLINGTON. June In A call Oil shares made by lVltotite and ( hallcnge ILaicrs. Ltd., was the subject of inquiry al 'lie Supreme Court, When the company .took action again-l llcnry Harper Major Bndky, dairviitan, Wellington, to recover C IRi’t 5s and interest on that amount. According to the statement of claim defendant was a member ol the plaintill' company, being the holder of U>2s shares. ’Defendant was indebted to plaintiff company in the sum °* b29J „’s (id in respect of a second call ol ■> s iq| per share on 1925 shares, made payable on October 7. 1922. lie was ; ,Lo iodebt, lin a similar sum on 1325 ..ban", made payable on November 1, 1922. On November 23 hi- -hares were lot-foiied in con-oqueiice ol non-pay-ment by defendant of calls dum The article- 'of association if the plaintiff company provided lor payment til intci-o-l on all calls In arrears at the rate of Cfi per cent per annum from the dale the sum became payable until payment. Payment of the sum ol C-lOfi r )s had been demanded by plaintiff company from deleudaiil, but dolendant had refused fo pay llte sum. For those reasons plaintifl company claimed £ 109 5s ami interest oil that amount at the rate ol L'fi per centum up to the date ol judgment. The statement of defence set out that defendant been mo a shareholder under certain circumstances. No such

call ns alleged liy t lie plaimifi r comjinny was over made by t lie directors of the company, ami ti it was made oil him im notice of call was given liim. - There was nil alternative statement that the call was not validly made. It was admitted that on November _•! defendant’s shares wore forfeited, but it was stated that prior to that date defendant had voluntarily repudiated the shares .and contract to take the same. As a second defence it was alleged that defendant -had been induced to become a share-holder in the company as the result of certain misrepresentations made in respect to the prospects and extent ol the business. Tn view of those representations defendant took shares and paid over a sum of finls 12s Gd. Ilis Honor raised a question as to whether defendant could allege misrepresentation against a company of which, in actual fact, lie was one of the promoter-. It was decided to argue this point later. The ease is unfinished.