COLONIAL BANK BOOKS' CASE.

Taranaki Daily News, Volume XLVII, Issue 8144, 29 June 1906, Page 2

COLONIAL BANK BOOKS' CASE.

ME BEAUND'6 CHABGKB. M m «w AMOCIinoV. rM Wsllinotov, June 2)8. vM Argnmont was resumed m the Court 'W* of Appeal thij morning in reference to '-M the appeal by Mr Vi.tor M. Braund M against the decision of Justices ffl. "II w vrds and Cooper upon hit application * '\l that the Colonial Bank books benot'-jl yet destroyed. ''"■^i Mr Braund contended that the late' .'/-Si liquidator had no right to retain tht books, and that they should be pot the hands of the Kegistrar of the Sopreme Court, He oontended that be (Mr Braund) had a status as abenefloi. aryownevandasthe lawful attorney . % o£ a registered owner and member to "<W equity. It was the duty of the Ap. vpeal Court to see that he was not '& cheated out of his rights by reuoa of -^7 'mproper conduct on the part of tlw Company. ,* j.

Mr Justice Dennistom "Then you s " must apply as a contributor." ■ " Mr Braund: "I can't now jandun I therefore without remedy P" ' , Mr Justice Denniston: «It mmi , 0 » Mr Braund, continuing hit argument: contended that the order made is Dunedin by Mr Ju, t i ce Cooper, on - May 2nd, finally dissolved the corpo« rate existence of the Colonial Bank, - • and that from that date the official liquidator became funotus offioio, and he book, were m his keeping u a trustee of the Court. He asked the Court to rule whether the ooks wereinthe custody of th. , Court, as tho point was o£ great im. $ portanoe to the interests he represented, • ' * own" ). le ™ Stt 1 owner in shares of the Colonial Bank, ' . • and an attorney for a number of ahare. ! * holders, whom he said had been y the Bank. He contended thtf -f^~ 19ot°\ 252 J°1 tfa ° Compaaies Act ' ■"! 1903, showed that it was the intention . * 01 tU ® legislature that the book* of « ' company should be preserved for five '■ i years after the completion of the ' liquidation, so that if there were case* •" " aud ' tto y °ould be investigated.

m . Luu. The Chief Justice, Sir Eobert Btout" Mr Justice Denniston, and Mr Jaitiee Chapman gave separate verbal judfr ments on the point.as to whethera person who was not a shareholder and not a contributory to the company, had power to intervene in the matter o! liq udation. All the judges were of opinion that Mr Braund did not posseaa the status he claimed ; that in faot the shares he olaimed to possess were still possessed by Mr C. Praser. The ' question was not one of procedure or practice at all, said Mr Juatije man. It was a question whether Mr Braund had conferred npon him by the Statute under which the Court wa» ■voting, authority whioh he asserted he had, and whether the Court of Appeal liad conferred upon it by the same Statute, the authority whioh the appe!> (ant asked it to exercise. The Chief Justice intimated that the appeal was dismissed with modified costs (thirty guineas), Mr Braund said he would like to xsk whother tho Court would give leave to appeal. The Chief Justice did not seo that the Court had power. There must be " £SOO in dispute. Tho Couft decided to hear Mr Braund further to-morrow.