DISTRICT COURT, REEFTON.

Inangahua Times, Volume IV, Issue 35, 29 June 1877, Page 2

DISTRICT COURT, REEFTON.

Monday, June 25, 1877. (Before His Honor Judge Weston.) In tbo Matter of the Rainy Cbeek Company (in Liquidation), and Patbice O'nbil. Mr Staite, on behalf of Patrick Q'Neil, applied that tbe name of O'Neil be removed from tho list of contributories in the above Company- Tbe affidavit of O'Neil set forth that deponent was originally tbe holder of one hundred shares in tbe Company. On the 21st of August he sold tbe shares to one R. H. Qudlop. All calls were paid up to the time of the sale. Tbat at the time of the sale he (Patrick O'Neil) had no knowledge of the financial position of tho Company. Tbat at the time of tbe transfer to Quillop believed he was the owner of several cottages in Christchurch. His Honor— A. man may have cottages and yet be overwhelmed witb debt. Mr Button pointed out that there were several discrepancies in the affidavits, O'Neil referred Jo the,, .transfer-*) as Quillop, whereas tbe name of the latter appeared to be Tedhope. His Honor— lt is really distressing to find tbat the Company had no rule, to prevent transfers of tbis kind. It is downright dishonesty. I only wish tbe liquidator was in a position to go further into these cases. Mr Button said that the liquidator was really unable to adduce any direct evidence in any of the cases. The names had been placed upon tbo list merely in tbe hope that something, might be elicited in Court to guide bim. There could not be the faintest doubt tbat all tbese cases were hedged by circumstances of a 'sfronsjly suspicious kind, but it wns so difficult to obtain evidence in tho cases as tbe parties resided afc a distance. Mason's case was somewhat different. There Mr Reeves had sworn that he actually saw the purchase money pass, and that tbe sale was a bona fide ono. bufc in O'Neil's case there was np corroborative evidence. His Honor— l really cannot see that I can mako any order in this mr.ttor at tbo present, and O'Neil's namo will therefore have to remain upon, the list until he shows some stronger grounds to tbe contrary. In this ease, neither the right name of the alleged purchaser, tbe date ofthe transaction, or the amount of tlie pu- chase mon^y is stated, The case must stand over. ; Mr Staile — O'Neil resides at Haupiii, Yin the (j-rey Valley, nearly ono hundred miles distant. His contribution is only set down at £5, nnd it would not be worth bis. wjiile. to qomo 100 miles for sucfi a purpose. His Honor— That is nofc a matter for tbe Court to consider. I certainly could no. think of ordering the name to be removed upon .s.u_jh evidence as that before tbo Court. Tho matter may be men tion again, but in the meantime O.Neil's. name mustremain upon Iho list aad he will have to pay the costs of to-day. In.the sume matter, re Petes Pucceix. Mr Stajte appeared to move that the name of Peter Purcell be removed from thelisfcof contributories, but as he was unable to proceed witb tbe application, it was adjourned until the nest sitting of tbe Court upon the payment of £2 2s costs. In the sam 6 matter, re Benjamin Gough. Mr Staite applied to be removed from the list of contributories, in respect of 500, shares. The affidavit of applicant set forth that on the 17th of May, 1876, he absolutely disposed ot hjs interest in tbe | Company to one Patrick M'Gonnogb ; tbat the transfer was duly registered ; that at tbe, time of the sale deponent was ignorant ofthe position of the company ; that afc tbe time of the sale the purchaser expressed a hope that he would make as many hundreds out of the shares as be had paid poind* ; that tbe purchase money, £40, was paid at the time; and finally that the transaction took place a long time p?io? to tbe winding up of the company. Mr Button raised an abjection to tbe affidavit on the groupd tbat it bad been altered since it was sworn to. Mr Staite said numbers of the shares were unknown to Gough at time of swearing the affidavit, and a blank was left, and subsequently filled in with the numbers of tbo shares. In no other respect had the affidavit been added to or varied. His Honor agreed that the course adopted was highly improper. Ho cer« tainly could not receivo tbe affidavit after the admission made. The affidavit would bave to be removed from Ihe file. Application dismissed. Mr Button asked that tbe remaining contributories might be. called over in order to ascertain whether there were any otber objections to tbo settling of the list. The names were then called over, but none of the contributories appeared. His Honor— As I am, an?ious to see all contributories. who are liable made to pay, if tbe liquidator desires an adjournment for any purpose, tbe Court will grant it. Do not let the case be hurried through without proper preparation, Mr Button would gladly accept; an adjournment of an bour in order to caable bim to consult witb the liquidator. The Court then adjourned,

Tbe Court resumed at 2 p.m. In the matter of tho Sib Julius Yogel Company (in Liquidation), and Louis Davies. ! William M'Lean — I am liquidator in the estate of tbe Sir Julius Yogel Company. I bave collected all tbe assets I could. I have not collected Naysmitb',. contribution, and have tbree reasons for not having dono so. One was tbat the Magistrate declined to make an order against Nayamy th because latter intimated bis intention of applying to the District Couit to have bis name removed from the register of the Company. The second rcasou was tbat N.'.ysmith had no means. Tbere are two brothers, and the both stood in the same position. It is more than sis months ago that I sued Naysmith in the Resident Magistrate's Court. The sum due by Naysmitb was aboufc £6 or £7, but I am not quite sure about the sum. I will nofc undertake to sWear that the men have not been in receipt of £3 I_s_. per week each since. I was requested to seize certain shares belonging to D. P. Anderson. I did not seize them at the time. Davies did request me to seize the shares, and I told him tbat I was liquidator in tbe estate and not him, and quite understood what course to take. In my opinion ie would have been useless to seiso tbe shares. I will not undertake to swear tbat Anderson did not have 2000 shares in the Anderson's Extended Company, or that tbe shares at that time were not saleable at 9J. Davies did threaten that unless I took action in the matter, 1 c would forward a complaint to tbe Judge, but I took no notice of what Davies said. I did afterwards tske action against Anderson, and caused bis shares to be seized in fche interest of another Company in which I was a contributory, but the Erema Causis Company had judgment against Anderson before tbe Sir Julius Yogel Company. I did hear in Court that Davies had a judgment against Archer for calls in the Company. I did not seek to screen Archer, nor never refused to put bis name upon tbe list. His Honor— l am at a loss to understand the purpose of the cross-examina-tion. Mr Staite-— I am endeavouring to show the Court that the assets of tbe Company have not been realised. His Honoi*.— Then we come back to what I have already said — if you have any substantial complaiut to make against tbe liquidator, let it be done in a straightforward way, upon affidavit, and the liquidator will then have an opportunity replying, wiiich he has not at present. Mr Staite de.hvd.to obtain a few other facts and lip would conclude. Cross examination, continued— l nf ver proyed against Anderson's estate for tiie .amount of his Hability to the Company. I was requ -sted by Davies to attend tho meeting of Anderson's creditors, and esamineil bim upon the points referred to, I did nofc do so, aud would, if necessary, repeat tbo refusal. I was a partner with Anderson in a mining lease. The partnership consisted in my paying £20 for the lease, and about an equal sum for wages, and the ground was subsequently abandoned. Louis Davies — I am a sharebroker in Reefton, and a contributory in tbe winding np.of the Sir Julius Yogel t'ompany. I know both tbe Naysmiths, and feel justified in saying that during the last twelve months neither of them bave lost a week' 3 work, except it might be by accident. I know D. P. Anderson ; he had 2000 shares in Anderson's Extended Company at the time I requested tbe liquidator to levy upon him. I called upon the liquidator at 9 o'clock a.m., and told him that if he did not proceed against Anderson by 12 o'clock on that day I would forward a written complaint to the Judge. The liquidator seized Anderson's interests, but sold tbem in the interest of the Erema Causis Company, of which he (tbe liquidator) was himself a contributory. Had be seized the shares, when I first requested him, lie would have recovered more than sufficient to cover Anderson's contribution. Naysmiths are both able to pay, Archer is a storekeeper at Boatman's, and is also ablo to - pay. Archer is a thoroughly good mark. I never told the liquidator that I had obtained judgment agaiust Archer. He knew it months before the date referred to. At the first the liquidator picked out six of tbe contributories and put them down for £100 each. He assessed the cost of winding up at £400, which included £270 for doubtful contribu» tories. As to Anderson's insolvency, I told the liquidator that I was quite j certain that if be proceeded against Anderson and subpoenaed Wise, and proved the debt against Anderson's estate, the amount could be recovered. Shortly before his insolvency it was notorious that Anderson made £100 oufc of promoters' s.iares in the Anderson's Extended Company. The liquidator put no questions to Anderson on his examination, aud in fact did nothing, but allowed him to get off. I told the liquidator after the insolvency that, by taking a course suggested, he could still come upon Anderson for bis contributions. It seems that there are certain contributories whom M'Lean is determined to let off, and certain ones whom ho is determined to make pay. His Honor— Then wby not lay a formal complaint against tho liquidator, and thereby afford inai r.ii opportunity o*

rebutting tbe charges made? The aecusatiois of Mr Davies are only general after all, why not have an affidavit prepared and signed by the contributories who object to the action of the liquidator. Mr Button— As your Honor remarks it is very easy for a man to go in the wit. • ness bos and make these indirect and general aspersions. It would certainly be much the fairest coi^rse to take the suggestion of tbe Court. Witness— The complaint is tbat the liquidator has nofc taken steps to realise tbe assets of the Company. I am prepared myself to give .los in the 4„fp t Archer's debt, lv any case it is the intention of the contributories to call a meeting, and a=certaiu the charges agaiust the estate and pay them off, and thereby prevent the liquidator from heaping up legal charges. His Honor: Butwboisthat is heaping up tbese legal charges. It is those like Mr Davies himself who are resisting the liquidator. The contributories niy rely upon it tbey will bare to pay in the end, and it would certainly be their best course to meet as stated and discharge their debts. Honesty is the best policy. Ifc seems inconsistent for those who are! trying to evade the contribution to come into Court, and complain of the liquidator filing up the costs. Itis ia reality the. j parties opposing wbo increase the costs. I— not the liquidator. The Court then a.ljourned.