BALANCE-SHEET TAGGED

Hokitika Guardian, 20 January 1926, Page 3

BALANCE-SHEET TAGGED

TWO MEMBERS DISQUALIFIED

[uy TULEtinAPir —n:n press association.] DANNEVIRKE, -Ifii. 19. The last balance .sheet of the l>aiinevirko Power Board < ontained . a tag that, “in tin' opinion of the Audit Office, transactions between the Board and C. 'f/. Neilson and Co. l/td., disqunlify R. s. Chadwick and .1. W. 'F.I--lingham, shareholders of the latter, from acting as members ol the termer Board.” The Board informed the Audit Office that in May last it took steps to satisfy itself that it was on safe grounds by writing to Mr T. F. Martin, counsel to the Electric Power Boards’ Association of New Zealand, clearly pointing out to him that Chadwick and Ellingham were only concerned in the business of C. L. Neilson and Coy. Ltd., adding that by virtue of the fact that they, on the death of a shareholder, hoeanie trustees of the estate, they arc not beneficiaries under the will. Air Martin replied that, in. his opinion, ft, (member of the Board was not disqualified by reason of the fact that there was a contract between the Board and an incorporated company consisting of less than twenty members, in which company lie is a shareholder, hut as trustee only, assuming that he was not one of the beneficiaries under the trust. This opinion was forwared to the AuditorOcneral, who replied that the Audit Office, supported by its legal advisers was unable to concur. The AuditorOeneral stated that Mr Martin’s opinion, of course, relieved the Audit Department of any obligation to take action in respect of the position up to date, but this condition cannot he maintained if tlm gentlemen in question continue after this intimation to •act ns members of toe Board.

f The matter was considered at the ~V Board’s meeting to-day. when regret r was expressed at the loss of two valued members. Mr Ransom, M.P., the Chairman, moved that- the Board, write to tho Audit Department asking for its guidance in the matter of a Supreme Court test ease, but the motion was deferred hv five to three, the* members holding that the. ratepayers should not, he involved in a legal action. It was finally decided that the Board’s action in the matter he held over until a further opinion was received from Mr Martin.