MINING COMPANY OR NOT ?

Greymouth Evening Star, 27 November 1929, Page 8

MINING COMPANY OR NOT ?

AN APPEAL DISMISSED MASTERTON, November 21. Mr Justice Smith upheld the decision of Mr. J. Miller, S.M., in th* case in which the Southern Mines Department Corporation Ltd. proceeded against William Hulme, of Masterton, claiming £5O as amount allegedly owing as unpaid share calls. The case was heard by Mr. Miller, S.M., some months ago, and at the last sitting ot the Supreme Court in Masterton the corporation appealed against the decision. During the case the question of whether the corporation could rightly be classed as a mining 'company was brought forward. In his reserved judgment His Hon or comments that counsel for the appellant contended that the test to be applied to determine whether a company, incorporated both for mining and for other purposes, was a company to which part 12 of the Act applied, depended not on the constitution of the company but on the nature of its operations for the time bein°- The corporation’s operations would classify it as a financial and mining company. It would become a mining company when it engaged m mining operations, as defined. This in the judge’s opinion, was unsound. He held that the character of a company must depend on its con stitution and not on the nature of its operations for the time being. Io hold otherwise would be to rest the nature.of the company upon the discretion of the directors and the result would be that the fundamental rights of the shareholders to their shaies and the rights of creditors against the assets of the company would vary fiom time to time at the discretion of the. directors This could not be law. It was’clear, then, that as the company was a mining company subject to part 12 of the Act, and as made n call on the respondent s shaies which remained unpaid at the ex tion of the 21 days after the due date for payment, respondent s shaies be came absolutely forfeited, pursuant to section 353 of the Act. It followed that the company could not succeec in its claim and the appeal would be dismissed with costs £lO and Couit fees (if any) to the respondent.