COLONIAL BANK.

Press, Volume LIII, Issue 9344, 19 February 1896, Page 5

COLONIAL BANK.

(PRESS -SSOOIATION TELE-RAM.)

DUNKDLN, February 18

Sitting in Chambers to-day & summon* oatue before Mr Justice William-- to proceed with the winding-up of the Colonial Bank, but it was decided to adjourn its consideratiou.

His Honour then heard an application la appoint t-__-_i_i liquidators iv connection with the att'airs oi tha Bank. Mr B. C. Haggett moved ou behalf of the Bank, aud Mr W. C. McGregor --.ppeared on behalf of William LeurmmHt, a siiiiroholdei', to oppose the motion. Air '_'. Youug, of Wellington, represented Ch_rles i-Vaser, a shareholder, who also opposed the motion ; and Mr J. F. Al. Fraser appeared for H. Oughill and H. Adam, shareholder.., who* supported tne motion. Mr Victor Braund, ot vVeiiiogtoo, was present. 4 Mr McGregor contended that the Court should satisfy its_lf concerning certain allegations mad- agaiust tho proposed liquidators. The nioat decisive way was to have au Investign,lion of the books. Mr Young also supported Hie application for an inspection. After considerable argument, in which his Honour s*id if anything about tneae gentlemen could be estal-liaiiod they ought to have it out without delay, a 9 it was a bud thing to havo suggestions flying about not supported by aifiuavit, it was decided to go on with the applicatiou to appoint liquidators, and, if necessary, adjourn the matter until the question of inspection had been dealt with.

Mr Maogregor then proceeded with what he had to aay against the proposed liquidators. He contended that tit the time of the winding-up tho Hou. VV. J. M. Larnach was largely iudebted to the Bank. Mr Haggitt said that was contradicted in the affidavit filed.

Mr Macgregor said the Court had a right to know wlien and how the dent was paid oil', and if it was by the dividend just declared. Thon Mr Larnach had been a Director of the Bank. Objection ■• was taken to Mr Vigers beoause he had been an official. Then as to Mr Ramsay counsel denied that ho was a representative of independent shareholders. Mr Ramsay had been an Auditor aud might, therefore, be responsible for what had been in the past balauce sheets. Further, he had stated publicly or semi.publioly that he wonld not aocept the position of liquidator, if it were olfered to him, and that he would have nothing to do with any liquidation or liquidator who would take proceedings against the Directors or any of them. Mr Haggitt, iv reply, poiuted out that' the gentlemen proposed were proposed by the Directors, the holders of 6638 shares, and they had been approved of at a meeting of shareholders, fie quoted authorities to show that the rule was to appoint those recommended by persons having charge of tbe proceedings. He read the affidavits of tho Hou. G. McLean and other shareholders to show that those proposed were fit and proper persons. As to an inspection, only the Directors could inspect, and they were bound to Becrucy. Mr Fraser followed, in support of the application, and in the course of his speech contended that there were ob jeotions against the others who had been proposed, as ia their commercial relations they were directly or indirectly oonneoted with the Board. Mr Young opposed the appointments pro* posed, and had not concluded hia case when the Court adjourned till Thursday. During the proceedings Mr Haggitt said that since tbe liquidators had been appointed the Bank of New Zealand had taken over accounts in the -*B" list, representing £56,000, It was a mistake to suppose that the accounts in the "D" list were bad. They were not operating accounts but they had to be liquidated, aud they were coming in pretty fa«t.