"COMPANY OF TWO."

Auckland Star, Volume LII, Issue 172, 21 July 1921, Page 4

"COMPANY OF TWO."

1 —• § ORDER FOR WINDING-UP. ' SUPREME COURT DECISION". r! [ I Judgment by Mr. Justice Adams in the , petition for the winding-up of the Com- . pany known as Mataia Limited was _c- ', livered at the Supreme Court to-day by the deputy registrar, Mr. F. W. , Schramm. , The petition was by Garrett Peter • Barry (Dr. Fitc-hett), one of the two ', contributories to the Company, and it I was opposed by the other contributory, David Robison (Mr. Rogerson). Petitioner was the holder of 1500 shares, t Robison having the balance of —00 , shares. The main objects of the Com- . pany were in regard to land and stock, , and 2856 acres at Kaipara had been , acquired for £13,350, of which £11,125 . remained on mortgage. Stock was put on the farm, and petitioner was employed by the Company to look after the stock and work the property. His Honor said that, having considered the evidence, he was satisfied the Company could not carry on its business owing to the disagreements between the members, which had caused a deadlock. Serious charges were made by the petitioner against Robison, who had replied with equally serious charges against the petitioner. He did not attempt to apportion the blame, but he thought that the charge of excessive drinking and aeglee. ; brought by Robison against the petitioner was not sustained by the evidence. Robison had sworn that at 3 o'clock oa ■ the afternoon of January 28 the peti- . tioner returned to the farm "helplessly intoxicated," and that he then served , on the petitioner a notice that a meeting of the Company would be held at 8 o'clock that evening; that the meeting was duly held in the kitchen, the petitioner being present and still helplessly drunk. If that were true, then it was difficult to understand how Robison, who seemed to be a shrewd person, could | regard the "meeting" as anything but a farce. Petitioner had denied that he was ever the worse for liquor on the farm, and his Honor preferred to assume that Robison's evidence tn the point was exaggerated and unreliable. Whatever the facts .cere, continued his Honor, it was hopeless to expect these two persons '._ work together. They were the o'.ly members of the Company, and eac-h of them was a director. Neither could carry on the business alone. The moneys of the Comj pany were in the hands of its bankers, the balance-sheet produced showing the Company had lost £820 in. 11 months. If the Company was wound up it was probable that the shareholders would get back a substantial part, if not the whole of their capital. An order would therefore he made by the Court for the winding-up of the Company, the petitioner's taxed costs to be "paid by the Company.