“DIRTY LINEN IN COURT”

Taranaki Daily News, 4 December 1926, Page 15

“DIRTY LINEN IN COURT”

CHARLES BEGG COMPANY V WINDING Uf> PRAYED FOR FAMILY SQUABBLE SETTLED. By Telegraph.—Press Associalioa. Dunedin, Last Night. In the Supreme Court to-day His Honour Mr. Justice Sim heard a petition by Alex Milne Begg praying that the company of Chas. Begg and Co. (Ltd.) be wound up by the Court under the provisions of the Companies Act Mr. W. G. Hay appeared in support of the petition. It was pointed out that Mr. Alex. Begg had been managing director since the inception of the present company and he claimed that the success of the business, which now possessed assets to the value of £200,000, was largely due to his efforts. At the present time he found himself in a rather unfortunate position. The company, being a family concern, had, with the acquiescence of the shareholders, made advances to certain of the shareholders from time to time against their holding in the company. At the present time the petitioner owed the company £l2,Out) in respect of such advances. The company now demanded the payment of these loans and had commenced an action to recover the sum. Petitioner had confessed to a judgment that he was not in a position to repay without having to resort to the shares in the company held by him. which were valued at £41,776. All tho shareholders knew the petitioner was obtaining advances, as these appeared in the reports of the auditors. It was now alleged that he was in debt to the company without the consent of the other shareholders. Owing to the fact that the company was a private one persons who were not already shareholders were not disposed to purchase these shares, a fact which precluded petitioner from selling at a fair value. If the other shareholders liked to force the position it would ruin the petitioner. The whole affair had arisen out of ill-feeling between the members of the family. His Honour asked why such a wealthy company did not settle its difficulties in private. It was washing its dirty linen in public. Mr. Hav said there was every reason why the company should be made a public one. It had assets of nearly £200,000 and it was unfortunate that its affairs had to be made public. Counsel discussed the matter during the adjournment and at the afternoon sitting of the Court it was announced that an agreement had been reached between the parties and would be signed for presentation at the Court on Tuesday.