NOT VALID

Evening Post, Volume CXIII, Issue 134, 10 June 1927, Page 8

NOT VALID

AN ALTERED VOTE •

SALE OF A COMPANY'S LICENSE

COUET'S DECISION

An important point arising out of the conduct? of a meeting, as to whether a chairman had the right to alter a vote after the result of a poll had been taken, was decided by his Honour the Chief Justice, Sir Charles Skerrett, in a judgment delivered in the Supreme Court to-day.

The matter concerned the sale of tho license of the New Zealand Sounds Hydro-Electric Concessions, . Limited, for a price between £250,000 and £300,000.

The facts showed that at a general meeting of the company^ held on 23rd November, 1926, at the company's office in the Dominion Farmers' Institute, a resolution was considered that tho company's license be offered for sale.

A quorum of shareholders duly met, the chairman of directors, Mr. Gerald Fitzgerald, civil engineer, presiding. The resolution regarding the sale was moved by Mr. Arthur Leigh Hunt, seconded, discussed, and put to the vote. Under the articles of association, a poll was demanded, and the scrutineers ro« Ported that«l77s votes had been cast in favour of and 1565 ovtes cast against the motion. The following dny the chairman altered the vote of Mr. Phineas Lovi, from a votio for, to i vote against the motion, on the ground that Mr. Lovi informed him that ho had recorded his vote in error. Mr. Lovi hold 117 votes, and Mr. Fitzgerald then announced that the motion had been lost. Accordingly, seven of tho shareholders took action, asking tho Court to declare the motion carried. The plaintiffs were: William Henry Potcr Barber; William Isaac Clark, builder; Charles Augustus Fletcher, retired chemist; William James Gaudin coal mercahut; Arthur Leigh Hunt, company director; John Albert Symonds, farmer; and Harbon Robert, Youn", civil engineer, of Westport. . The company said that Mr. Fitzgeraid, being satisfied before he had declared the result of tho poll and before any record had been entered, that a bonaflde mistake had been made by Mr. Levi, the voting paper of Levi was modified accordingly. He declared that the resolution was lost.

In his judgment, his Honour said that although the motion, before him was in form for an interim injunction, by consent of the parties, the hearing of the motion wbb treated as the hearing ot the action. Ab may have been expected, counsel before him at once accepted My. Levi's assurance that he had Ul*? r nded t0 vot« against the resolution. The question in the present case isHub the chairman power to permit an amendment of a vote after it has been cast on a poll, and to treat the vote so amended as if it had betn so cast ab initiot I am of opinion in the negative When the vote has been delivered, as in this case, in writing, to the chairman; or his delegate to receive the same as a vote, it cannot be altered or withdrawn. Xho shareholder has exercised his privilege of voting when Jie has delivered his voting, paper to the proper authority as an oxercise of his right to vote. After,that is done, it cannot be withdrawn or amended. ..." .

His Honour made a declaration that the resolution moved on 23rd November 1926, was carried. .

Mr C..A. li. Treadwell appeared for the plaintiffs, and Mr. M. Myers, X.C with him' Mr. P. Jackson, opposed the imotion. .-"'■■'■' : ■'■- ■ ■ '