NAME PLATES OF COMPANIES.

Press, Volume LXVI, Issue 19971, 4 July 1930, Page 9

NAME PLATES OF COMPANIES.

CHARGE IN LOWER COURT. i NOMINAL PENALTY INFLICTED. The obligations of registered companies were explained in the Magistrate's Court yesterday morning, when three dentists, trading as a company, were charged with failing to affix the registered name of their business in a conspicuous position outside their premises. The company concerned was H. W. Frost, Christchurch, Ltd., and tw® charges were read against them. The first concerned their office premises, and to Mus they pleaded guilty,'while to the second, wuicb concerned their place of business, they pleaded not guilty. j lur 10. D. Mosley, S.M., was on the Bench, Inspector A. Cameron represeined the police, and Ml* K 8. liowio appeared fnr t,h#> fl«l«n<lant. Opening tho case on the second charge, inspector Cameron submitted that defendant was liable to be lined under the Companies Act, 19128. H. \V. Frost, Christchurch, Ltd., was incorporated at Auckland on May 10th, with 8000 shares of £i each, which were taken up by Harold William Frost, Albert Ernest Higgins, and Charles Alfred Collins. They were all qualified dentists. I nder a section of tho Act they were required to have the full name of their concern aHixed i legibly, in a prominent position, on tho outside of their premises. On May 21st an inspection of the premises was made by Detective-Ser-geant J. B. Young. Ho was unable to see that the regulations had been complied with. Two officers of the Stamp Department also made an inspection, and they came to the eame conclusion. It appeared that there Were several other names affixed outside the premises, but the registered name had not been included. Detective-Sergeant Young made a further investigation, on the following day, but the proper sign was still missing. Inspector Cameron added f hat defendant was liable under the Act to a fine of £5 for each day that elapsed between tho time that the company was registered, and the time the name was pi'oporly displayed, j Detective-Sergeant Young then gave evidence. On May 21st, he w«nt to defendant's premises at 244 High street, to see whother the terms of the A.ct had been complied with. In various places, on the ground floor at the entrance of the buildings, and upstairs j where the surgery was situated, there were different name plates. such as "H. W. Frost, Dentist,'' but he could not nee the proper name, "H. W. Frost, Christchurch, Ltd." Mr Bowie: Did you look at the surgery door?— Yes. fttr Bowie: You did not see the proper name there?— No. In the course of further cross-exam-ination, Mr Bowie mentioned that tho purpose of the clause of the Act in question was the protection of the creditors of companies. Martin Kennedy and Reginald George Morrison, officers of the Stamp Department, both corroborated Detec-tive-Sergeant Young's evidence. The proper sign had in fact been on the door of the surgery since the incorporation of the company, suid Mr Bowie, presenting his case. It was written on a "wiggly" glass panel. Perhaps the light was bad in tho pas-sage-way, but nevertheless the sign had been there all the time, and he would call witnesses to prove it. There was no question of his client's evading •the Act. ' ' Mr Bowie called Albert Ernest Higgins, a director of the company, who said that the words. "H. W. Frost, Christchurch, Ltd.„" had been written on the surgery door since the incorporation of the company, at tho beJune, 1928 Inspector Cameron: Did you draw Detective-Sergeant Young's attention to the name when he visited the prex misesP—On his second visit. Charles Alfred Collins, another direo» top of the company, confirmed the fact that the name had been on the surgery door since June, 1928. A sign-writer, Harry Jacobs, said that in June, 1928, he painted the words, "H. W. Frost, Christchurch, Ltd., Dentist," on the surgery door of the premises in question, and he produced an invoice rendered on July Ist, 1928, on which was inscribed th« wording of the sign, and the amount charged for the work. In witnew'n opinion it wa? impossible for anybody to miss the sign, while going upstairs lo the surgery. James Marshall, the caretaker of tho building nt 244 High street, said that two years or more ago he had noticed the sign, "H. W. -Frost, Christchurch, Ltd.,' 1 on the door of the surgery. Questioned by Mr Bowie, he, said that he was quite positive about this. Inspector Cameron: When was the Sign, "H. W. Frost, Dentist," put up outside tho building?— About the same time as the other sign was put on thesurgery door. _ ' Inspector Cameron: Did not this striko you as being strange?— No. When tho evidence had concluded, thrf Magistrate said that the wording of the clause of the Act required that the sign should be painted or affixed in A conspicuous position, and the letters should be legible. The police evidence revealed that three men had not noticed the sign on the door when they visited the promises; therefore, it stow! to reason that it was not legible. He was sure that Detective-Sergeant Young would not have missed the words on the door, unless there was some good reason for it. He advised Counsel for the defence to tell his clients to have the sign repainted, and to hare it made more legible. Mr Mosley was satisfied that the proper words were on the door, but it was evident that the Act had not been complied with in its entirety. .Defendant would be convicted and discharged. .... On the first charge, to which defendant pleaded guilty, and which < Mr Bowie explained as being aty oversight, on his client's part, a fine of £2 and costs was inflicted.