PUNT GOLD DREDGING COMPANY, LIMITED.

Evening Star, Issue 13003, 24 December 1906, Page 6

PUNT GOLD DREDGING COMPANY, LIMITED.

to tot; edttob. Sir, —In your issue of 22nd December a letter appears signed " A Country Shareholder," in which the writer complains that tho secretary did not post the annual balanoe-6heets and directors' report in time. This statement I most emphatically deny. The balance-sheet and report was posted in compliance with the Companies Act and the articles of association of .the said company. That it did not Teach " Country Shareholder " in time to formulate- a notice of motion is no fault of mine. A shareholder living beyond the colony lias as much eauso to complain as "Country Sliareholder."

Admitting tho statement that one shareholder did not receive an annual balancesheet and report to bo correct—although, liko other charges in his letter it is open to grave doubt—l must refuse to accept the responsibility. A balance-sheet and directors' report was posted to all members in tho company, and once that is done I cannot be held responsible for its non-delivery. But why should the absence of a balancesheet and report prevent any Cromwell shareholder giving notice of motion if he lias any special business to place before I tho shareholders, particularly as Mr J. L. I Scott is kept well posted as to the financial position of tho company. I question I Mr Scott's right to poso as tho representative of the country or Cromwell shareholders in face of tho fact that only one proxy representing twenty-four sliares was sent to tbo office from Cromwell. —I am, etc, J. A. Si.igo, Sec. Punt G.D. Company. December 24. TO THE JKJJITOR. Sir, —A letter from " A Country Shareholder " of 18th inst. is full of mistakes. As " Country Shareholder" was not present, of course lie does not understand what took place at the meeting referred to. Tho fact is, tho Cromwell contingent came to Dunedin with the object of reviving the management o? tho company fr";n Dunedin to Cromwell. In their siniplicty they thought all they had <o do was to attend a meeting and propose such a resolution, and then, if they haoiwrnea to have a chance majority, they would carry their point. Of couts-3, such a state of things world never do. All (shareholders must be notified of any such tiunortatit easiness, or there would bo no ftability or wenrity in any company. Jt was my duty to inform Cromwell shareholders of this fact. I told them tho proper way to havo such a resolution considered, and I conld do r.o more. . , But as to burking discussion, Lcir.uy Shareholder" is qmte wrong, ii.c legitimate business of tl:» mee:ng was over, shareholders were allovrjd to ta-'k at large on the affairs cf the cc-mjat.y, nnd, as your report hss shown, the privilege was verv freely availed of. ""Country Shareholder" is also -wrong about the engineer's reports. Mr Scott's claim was that directors had neglected to supplv requisitions of the engineer and dredge-master. He could have read his own IcttejAid ho chosen, as ho had ii in his harJWsut instead bo called on ine to read which I declined to do. Mr Ccott failed absolutely to show that j any requisition had been neglected, and he ought to have acknowledged his mistak?. As to tho allegation about Mr Talboy's mortgage, it is absolutely untrue that 12± per cent, was paid. The arrangement about the 150 shares was made with a fuaraer mortgagee, and was mentioned in both prospectus and memorandum ot ossociitini., and it was only when the former mortgagee declined to fulfil the agreement that Mr Talboys -came to the rescue of the company and made tho advance. It is a very sad pity to see some shareholders doing their best to injure their own property.—l am, etc., - Robt. GrMtisox:. December 24.