MR A. SCHOLES AND THE DAIRY COMPANY'S ANNUAL MEETING.

King Country Chronicle, Volume VII, Issue 594, 16 August 1913, Page 5

MR A. SCHOLES AND THE DAIRY COMPANY'S ANNUAL MEETING.

The Editor. Sir,- —It wad with considerable surprise that I read Mr Scholes' latter in your last issue, and although 1 am very sorry to have any occasion to deal with a matter of this sort in the correspondence columns of the pap?r, I, in justice to myself., and in the interests of the company claim a brief reply. Mr Scholes is a shareholder in the company and wa-3 pre&ent ; at the annual meeting on the 7th inst. ! and one would naturally expect that I if anything took place at that meeting | @f which he did not approve he would j have raised the question at the ineefcng and had the matter explained and i dealt with at one?. In place of that, I however, he makes no attempt to ques- ! tion what was done, but immediately ! i goes out and ru3h°s into print with a [ i series of groundless and ridiculous j j statements, and in his desire to en- j I lighten his feliow shareholders says j ; "I want to show that the shareholders j : had very little to say in the election j jof the directors, Mr Boddie elected ; I them himself. Mr Boddie controlled 34 votes, therefore I say that he elected the present director?." One ; would-almost feel flattered at being j credited with so much power, were it j not that Mi Schole?, premises on which j he builds his statements have r.o j foundation in fact. I pass over with- j out comment the very obvious /act j that Mr Scholes does not scruple to j use in the public press private infor- j nation obtained whilst acting' as a j scrutineer when the ballot was being j taken, but even with the aid of such J private information he fails to give i the truth for Mr Boddie did not con- ; trol 34 votes. The number of shares ; held by me entitled me to seven vutes, j whilst proxy forms sent in to the sec- ! refcary from absent sharehulders in my favour represented the other 17 votes; j in all 24-vote?. When it is renumbered j that 140 votes were cast for one can- j didate alone, and at least 150 to 160 j votes were exercised by the sharehold- j ers present the utter ridiculousness of I Mr Scholes statement at once becomes i apparent, for how could one man even ; controlling "24 votes be said to elect a ! board of directors against a voting j power of 150 to 160 to say nothing of the fact that several other shareholders hold a garater number oE shares than I do and probably exercise 3 3 many proxies! But Mr Scholes's second statement is even more absurd than his first, when he lays that Messrs Green and Colebrook Ltd., are the principal guarantors to the bank for the company, and that but for G. and G. there would have been no dairy in- , ciustry at Te Kuiti to day. Either Mr ; Scholes has been drawing upon a very ; powerful imagination or has had his j leg pulled very badly, for so far from Messrs Green and Colebrook "Ltd.'' j being the principal guarantors they ; are not, and never hive been guaran- : tors at all. One of the firm. Mr P. R. i Colebrook as an old settler in the dis- j 1 ti'ict, and no doubt for business pur- ; poses, signed a guarantea with other i six or seven gentlemen who were re- ; sponsible for starting the company j but I venture to say that Mr Cole- j brook would be thp first to disclaim j i any such distinction as that attri- s buced to G. and C. by Mr Scholes. Mr ! Scholes admits in conclusion that he ; is a new chum in dairyingjmatters, but j one is almost forced to think that he ! is a new chum in some other things 1 as well, otherwise he would know that | not only co-operative dairy companies j but all joint stock companies from the ! Bluff to the North Cape have in terms I of the Companies Act the same sys- ! tern of election both in respsct to j cumulative voting and voting by j proxy. I am, etc., j JAMES BODDIE. !