BACON COMPANY SHARES.

Taranaki Daily News, Volume XLVII, Issue 81845, 12 September 1906, Page 2

BACON COMPANY SHARES.

SHAREHOLDERS OR NOT SHAREHOLDERS? On Tuesday morning, the SW. S Mr T. Hutchison, heard evidence touching the claims by the Taranaki Co operative Bacon Company against William McKenzie for payment of allotment moneys, calls, and interest on two shares in the company. The defence was that the defendant had not signed the application form, but had given his signature to the canvasser on the distinct understanding that if he (defendant) left the district he would be relieved of all liability and the transaction would be ignored. Mr Hutchen appeared for the Com pany, and Mr QuiHiam (Govett and QuilJiam (for the defence). Mr Hutchen called Mr Drake, the secretary, who said William Mackenzie was on the register as the owner of two shares, on which four calls had been made. Defendant had come to the office to see about payment, ana seemed ready to pay, but on second thought said he would see the chairman first.

Cross examined by Mr Quilliam, Witness denied having Baid McKenzie signed an application form for Bhares. He personally posted the final notice to defendant.

Mr H. Okey, chairman of the company, who said he had spoken to McKenzie a fortnight ago, was cross-ex arnined by Mr Quilliam, stated he did not know Crockett had promised to relieve defendant of his liability, or not to use his name,if defendant sold his Hurford road farm and left the district. He was not chairman when] allotment was made. ■ Joseph Crockett, who had canvass ed for share applications, said he had mislaid the paper containing the original shares. Both the defendant arjd Gilbert had signed fo'r shares at the same time. The sheet signed by these men was a sheet of foolscap,, headed to the effect that the signatures agreed to take the number of shares set. opposite their names. He had filled up McKenzie*s application form. To MrQuiHiam: He did not have application forms when the signatures were obtained. He did not promise that if defendant sold his farm he would ignore the transaction. Witness was paid commiss ion on payments for shares. To Mr Hutchen: After the flotation of the company he met McKenzie, who asked to have his name taken off the | share register.

Mr R .Pepperilil, first secretary of the company, gave evidence as to the posting of notices of allotment, share calls, etc. To Mr Quilliam: McKenzie's no tice was posted to Uruti, the address given on the application for shares. Witness could swear that he posted a notice of allotment addressed to the defendant. A notice was posted to every" person whose name appeared on the share list, but he could not recollect the date of posting, William McKenzie, the defendant, a farmer on the Smart road, and formerly of the Hurford road, gave evidence that when he was negotiating for the sale of his Hurford road farm, Crockett overtook him on the roa-1 with Mr Gilbert ,and asked him to take up shares in the conmo.ny. He said he would not tjkc shares as he | was leaving (ho district. Crockett kept bothering him about it, and told witness that by merely signing a list he would incur no liability, aud that if he left the district, he could ignore the business altogether. Witness read 'he Us*.) with the heading, if there was one there. Shortly afterwards he sold his farm, and left for the Okoko road, inland from Urenui. Whilst at the r«ad farm he received no communication from the co.muany, and up to the time he left Okoke road, in the beginning of this year he never received any commun ication from thp company. The "final was the only notice he ever got.'

'To the Bench: The address "Uryti" would not find him at Okoke. He could not have told Crockett he was going to Uruti, for he knew he was going to Okoke, and whoever entered "Uruti" in the book had no authority to do so. Cross-examined by Mr Hutchen: Did not meet Crockett in New Plymouth and ask for his name to be taken off the list of shareholders. He did not have any condition insert

Ed in the application, but trusted to Crockett's word. When he got the "final notice" he went to see Mr -Drake. "1 asked to see what I had signed. If I had been stupjd enough to sign anything \h,at had got me in the soup I \voitld pay." The secretary sa\d tie had found an application form bearing the witness' signature, but witness knew he had not

signed any application. Argument in this and other cases will be taken at 10 a.m. next Monday. In the case against J. Viekery, junr., the defence tjvat no authority was eye? given or implied to hav? his name placed on the re-

gister, while the canvasser's evi donee is to the effect that Viekery agreed to take one share if the company could not float otherwise. Charles Jury, another defendant, denies having signed an application form. In the case against Skelton, the defendant pleads he was induced by the canvasser to sign the application for two shares on it being represented to him that the total liability would not exceed ,64 . This is denied by the company's canvasser, in whose presence and at whose solicitation the signature was written. Replying to the Bench., Crockett stated # that P. Raill, another defendant,! had been rnost ready to sign, evincing great jiiiefest in the formation of the company.