EXASPERATED SHAREHOLDERS.

Temuka Leader, Issue 2416, 25 October 1892, Page 4

EXASPERATED SHAREHOLDERS.

London, Oct. 20.

The creditors of the Mercantile Bank of Australia have resolved to obtain counsel's opinion in Melbourne as to the criminal and civil liability of the directors of the bank, and if there is a reasonable prospect of conviction they will take preliminary steps to get the Government to prosecute them. Mr Stewart, the liquidator, declared that the assets of the Davies companies in Melbourne were worth £174,000. Sir Matthew Davies virtually controlled the bank, and the directors mast explain how they had authorised the advances which had been made by the bank to the Davies companies. A shareholder who was present at the meeting declared that nothing so fraudulent as the transactions in connection with this bank had ever occurred in the history of Victoria. General Babbage reiterated the charge against Sir Graham Berry of knowing the condition of the bank when he sold his shares, and when he arrived in Melbourne of having helped Sir Matthew Davies to delude the local shareholders. He contended that Sir Graham Berry was just as bad as the Others. The meeting of creditors represented 670,000 shares, but Mr Stewart ■tatod that 815,000 were still unaccounted for. He said that the books had been cooked to oonoeal the real facts, and he recommended that the whole capital of the institution be called up on easy terms. Speaking at a meeting of the depositors of the Mercantile Bank of Australia, Sir E. C. Guinness said that the honour of the colony was involved in the affair. Mr Brooks declared that the London depositors would not rest until those connected with the management of the institution had been punished. Later. At tie meeting of the shareholders of the Mercantile Bank of Australia, the Official Receiver said there was no hope of being able to recoup the losges, and he was determined to fix the guilt on the responsible persons. Mr Hobson pointed out that the bank was registered in London : hence the shareholders could not ho held liable for the payment of calls. The Receiver stated that the Court had decided that the banks had jurisdiction in regard to the payment of calls, and payment could therefore be enforced. The motion urging the prosecution of those connected with the management of the institution was amended so as to exclude the London management and include the Melbourne directors and officials. Melbourne, October 21. Acting in the interests of English creditors of the Mercantile Bank, two well-known barristers are investigating afiairs with a view of taking action. The Crown Law Department is enquiring into the affairs of the AngloAustralian Bank, to ascertain whether evidence exists to warrant a prosecution.

THE NAPIER DIVORCE CASE. In the Divorce Court, Napier, on Friday the cross-examination of Mrs Joshua was continued. She admitted having lived with Joshua four years before she married him, and was introduced to his friends and her own as his wife, and was treated by them as such. The marriage was postponed because he, being a Jew, said his marriage to a Christian would grieve his mother, who was then old, and might kill her, as two of his brothers had married Christians. He promised to marry her within a year, but put it off for the same reason. Had he not married her when he did she would have left him. Their quarrels commenced when they went to Taupo, in 1890, and his conduct to her gradually became worse. Miss Joshua was present when Annie Tuft's letter was pieced together. It was the day after her final quarrel with her husband that witness became aware of his relationship with Annie Tuft. Miss Joshua told Miss Miller what Mrs Kemp had said, and Miss Miller repeated it to witness. The communication was that Mrs Kemp had said she had turned Annie Tuft out of Mrs Joshua's bedroom at night, after telling her not to go there. Mrs Joshua's case against her husband was closed, and the defence opened. Practically the case against Miss Keep depends on the evidence of one witness — Mrs Kemp, mother of Mrs Joshua. She was also the principal witness against Annie Tuft, but many other witnesses deposed to suspicious circumstances and familiarity between Joshua and Tuft. Mrs Kemp did not mention what she alleges she saw for two years, when Joshua forced a deed of separation with his wife on the ground of adultery with Norman Kennedy. The defence make a point of that silence. They also deny that Mrs Kemp could have seen anyone enter Miss Keep's room at Taupo from the position Mrs Kemp says she occupied, and allege that when Mrs Kemp first made the allegation against Miss Keep at the Spa she said her suspicions were aroused by finding in Miss Keep's bed fluffy material from Joshua's dressing gown, In court she stated the fluff was in Joshua's bed from Mis 3 Keep's woollen, nightgown. Joshua in the witness box totally denied adultery with either woman, but admitted being very intimate, though not criminally so, with Tuft. When he charged his wife with adultery she did not deny it, and implored him to keep the matter quiet for the sake of their adopted daughter, which he promised to do. He would not iiave taken the present proceeding, had not his wife violated a separation agreement and returned from America, and aiade the affair a public scandal by instituting proceedings for judicial separation. His counsel stated he would bring direct evidence of Mrs Joshua being found in improper positions with Kennedy, but the only witness was Tuft.