CORRESPONDENCE.

Auckland Star, Volume XXVIII, Issue 74, 31 March 1897, Page 8

CORRESPONDENCE.

gj THE AUCKLAND GAS * COMPANY.

(To the Editor.)

Sir,—l was much interested on reading the account of the proceedings of the meeting of shareholders held yesterday, and especially was I impressed wibh the purport of the letter which waß read from Mr Morton. Ib appears to me bhab as a partly paid-up shareholder thab gentleman's objections were well founded, and thab in a forum of law, equiby and justice bhese objecbions would be decided to be good.

I venture to think thab whab appears to have taken place yesterday was nob only very extraordinary, but it was wrong and unjust alike to the paid-up ehareholdera and the unpaid-up shareholders. To the paid up shareholders, I think it was #rbng,in this sense. They having borne tjie '■.*' he.at and burden of bhe day," and paid.iip^iiai^ npon the funds and profits of the Company, a claim prior to those who have nob paid up their Hb&t&B, fiiid they have a perfect)- right to rely npon these funds for their benefits. The effect of issuing fresh paid up shares as decided on yesterday is bo "water" this fund which the paid up shareholders have the prior and besb righb to, and this appears to have been done without their unanimous consent. To do this without their unanimous consent was, I venture bo think, unlawful, and is impeachable at the instance of any one of the paid up shareholders, and I do hope and trust bhat if tbe advice of the Company's very competent legal advisers haa nob been taken on this poinb, that ib will be taken before the matter is furbher proceeded with. Had tho whole of the present paid up shareholders consented to the fund on which bhey have these prior claims being " watered " in this way, then the case mighb have been different _ As it was they were nob unanimous, and in such m case I cannob for a momenb think that a majority has power to bind a minority in ouch a case as thab. As te the partly paid up shareholders, I venture bo think the case is, to say the least, also very unfair. These shareholders took up their shares with their eyes open, and quite prepared to pay all calls until tbe shares were paid up, and I understand tbab they have always been ready ai»d anxious, and are most wißhful, to do this, bo as to attain the position of paid up shareholders, and become recipients of the increased benelibs. Bub, no, bhey are nob to be allowed to do bhis, and thereby supply the Company wibh the necessary funds within itself, bub they are to be postponed by calls being made on them, and gimulbaneouHly with these calls being made new paid up shares are to be issued. Why is this to be 1 Why not accepb the uncalled capital which these shareholders *re ready and anxious bo pay and if .hat source does not supply sufficient then consider the necessity and advisability of obtaining the consent of all the paid up shareholders to bhe issue of paid up shares further sum? Surely that course woold be both jusb and reasonable, and all the shareholders would be breated alike. As ib ia I venbure bo think bhey are nob being treated alike. Their money is as good as bhe money ot bhe buyer of paid up ■hares. Then why nob take bhis firsb whon bhey areready to Rive ib, and then consider, if more is wanted, the prudence and advisability of issuing further paid up shatoi. Thiß would, I think, be righb and just and be treating all the shareholders alike and as they have a righb bo bo treated. As ib is the proceedings of the meeting yesterday wore bhe appearance of " a house being divided againsb itself" —which I think there is no need for and which ehould certainly be avoided. The common goad of all the shareholders does I think call for this; The case of bhe partly paid up shareholder is, I venture to think, a very hard one, for he offers his money, and the answer he receives is that it will only be taken in " driblots " from time to time, and while he ia thus postponed from becoming a paid-up shareholder, obhers are allowed—if they choose to pay for ib—te occupy thab position, That bhe Chairman and directors mean well, and bo do what is right to us all, is quibe clear, yeb I presume to think that a pause Bhould be made and the matter reconsidered. —Yours, etc., Shake holder. March 31st, '97.