BRUCE'S OATMEAL MILL.

Temuka Leader, Issue 1908, 25 June 1889, Page 2

BRUCE'S OATMEAL MILL.

I Tho hearing of the case concerning the. above Milling Company *as continued at j th« District Court, Timaru, on Friday, I Saturday, and yesterday. The chief point cf it was as follows :—Tbe original shareholders held £IOO shares, paid up in full. Tt was found that more cipital was required, and the shareholders were osked to double their shares without paying any more money into the concern * that is, instead of one share paid up in full they were to have two shares half paid up. Two shares half paid up were equal to one . share fully paid up so far as the shareholders were concerned, but it was better for the directors from a financial prrnt o.f view, for it virtually doubled the capital, and they could borrow from the bank on the strength of the security of the unpaid half shares. To this several of the shareholders agreed, provided 75 of thej'r sum-, ber agreed to it, and the great question ia ! dispute is whether 75 per cent, agreed or ! not. If they did the shareholders would be liable to pay the unpaid capital j that is, everyone who originally held a £IOO share would have lo pay another £lo# now ; if 75 per cent did not agree she shareholders would not he liable, The evidence showed that Mr Bruce trana* ferred some of his-shares to his wife, son, daughter, and the secretary in order to make up the 75 per cent, of shareholder*. Another point in the case was that shares should not have bean given for property. This referred to Mr Jruce, who had received six paid up shares for the property'lie sold the company j to 54? «v Brayshaw, who received three paid up * shares for the }md he sold; and toi Messrs Reid and Gray, who received one, share for an engine they supplied, It »vaß urged that these were liab'e to pay their shares over again, notwithstanding having given their proparty already, and also the duplication of the said shares. Another point raised was that some of the Bhares were sold at a discount, and that selling them at a discount rendered them null and void. Evidenco on these points w«a tol^en, James Guild said he was present a.t a

meetiDg on the 20th August, 1887, afc which the duplication agreement wa« sigEed. Witness signed it. Shortly before the meetiDg in the Ship Hotel Mr plante told him the mill was "sick." At the meeting in the Ship witness naked about the duplication and Mr Rhodes (the chairman) said that it could not be doqe, Mr Dawson said the same thing, had put the question M straight'' and' so, did other shareholders. Nover received a, notice stating thatj ti|e duplication h,a| been completed, oran.y dpcumont, referring to this matter. To Mr Stewart; Always wanted the mill to go on. Had worked agreeably with the directors until al was over, when Mr Dawsoc had insulted him. Was al along willing to stand in, and duplicate th.Q shares if,good men were put in ns diree-i tors ; There was a wish to get rid of objectionable men. These were to be kicked out, and men prepared to duplicate putio. i The directors always wanted to bo relieved JjS of their liability, aud yet would not say ' what they had done with the rnooey that they had received. There had been no, duplication, yot the books of the company

had been bo patched up that it was shown from tbem that the duplication bad been fleeted. Alexander Kelraan also stated that he understood that the duplication of shares had fallen through, and Bwore be never received aoy letter stating it had been accomplished. David Shaw gave similar evidence,

John Kelland said that from a conversation with Mr Bruce he agreed to take a share. Paid £l2 10a down at the time, and considered be was liable for £IOO. Edmund Burke took a share on Mr Bfuce guaranteeing 10 percent., and on his also agreeing to take oats or wheat. (This witness explained to Mr Stewart tbjft Mr Bruce s»id that there would not be more than £SO "required" on the shire.) A, McKenzie alflo said that Mr Bruce had induced him to taka up a share at £SO, on which he had paid a deposit of £l2 10s. This £53 was all hi weuld have to pay spread over a period of twelve months.

A, Kelman, who was present at the tine Kelland, Burke, and MoKenzie bought their shares, said that he distinctly understood the shares were to be of £SO each. Several others were examined. Robert Rutherford, sheep-farmer, Albury, stated that Mr Bruce offered bim two fully pkid-up shares for £lO9. If the shares had been offered to him at par he would not ha*e taken them. Never received a notice of the shares having been allotted to him. The hearing of evidence concluded on Saturday, aod yesterday was taken up with legal arguments. Th» case had not concluded by latest accounts.