OUR REEFTON CORRESPONDENT AND THE GOLDEN BELL CASE.

Grey River Argus, Volume XV, Issue 1920, 1 October 1874, Page 2

OUR REEFTON CORRESPONDENT AND THE GOLDEN BELL CASE.

[to the editor.] Sir — In your issue of the 12th inst. I notice a communication from your Reef ton correspondent. Your correspondence commences by giving what purports to be a history of the Golden Bell Company, but as it is clearly evident from his remarks that he is actuated by a spirit of animosity towards myself and several other residents of this district who happen to have provoked his ire in political arid other matters, I think it but right that the case should be set before the public in its true light. Prior to the winding tip being commenced, a meeting of directors was held, and a call of threepence per share made to liquidate the liabilities of the company, which amounted to about LIOO. Previous to this the company had been indebted to me L 36 for upwards of five months for wages paid by me for working the mine. Before the meeting of directors was held, I offered to take L3O in settlement of my claim of upwards of L6O, provided the rest of the debts were paid. The call having been made, was paid by some of the shareholders, who transferred their shares to the Company, and so avoided further liability. Had all the shareholders paid there would of course have been no necessity for the winding-up, but one of the directors who made the call (Mr John ! Stitt) declined to pay, and successfully defended an action on the technical ground that the minutes of the meeting had not been signed by the chairman. His counsel, however, stated that his client was quite willing to pay if the company was wound-up, and accordingly a ! petition was presented by Messrs Ivess, Tilbrook, and Mirfin, creditors for L2B 15s 6d, to his Honor Judge Harvey, who made the necessary order. A meeting of creditors was afterwards held, at which all the creditors but one were present, either personally or by proxy, and I was appointed liquidator. The estate was wound-up in the ordinary way, and of course the expenses were as much and no more than they would have been had the debts amounted to LIOO,OOO instead of LlO0 — of course your sapient correspondent does not see this any more than he does the left-handed compliment he pays his.Honor the Judge — who settled all the amounts,— when he " regrets that Mr Smith's efforts were only partially successful in resisting the claims of the liquidator." What he means by this latter is as incomprehensible as his statement, that I " claimed and received a salary of L 2 per 1 week for one year and ten weeks," is untrue. I say untnw guardedly. Were it "a matter of calculation, I should not use this terra, but your correspondent (if he aims at being a faithful chronicler) should have either read the plan of distribution or have been in Court, and from neither of these sources could he have obtained the information he published. The amount claimed and received by me was Lll2 6s. ■■: , Your correspondent tells you that " Mr W. Smith had to do battle on behalf of

: his brother shareholders and contributors, i &s he was unable to secure the services of Jconnsel, owing to one of the two gentlemen resident in Reefton being a creditor and a participator of the liquidator's crumbs" (what a polite insinuation and how neatly put !) " and the other gentleman declining to accept the case." He should also have told you that the "other gentleman") who had previously acted for Mr Smith) refused to have anything further to do with the matter after hearing Mr Smith's evidence, when the latter endeavored to induce His Honor Jndge 'Harvey to believe that he was not a "brother shareholder, and to strike him off the list of contributories. The most truthful part in your correspondent's letter is where he says that the schedule and plan is a "curiosity." As it is simply a Dr. and Or. account he no doubt speaks for himself, and 1 believe that to him it is a "curiosity." He also speaks of an amendment to the law, and has evidently been reading the Bankruptcy Act carefully. Let us hope that when he becomes Premier we shall have better laws. I trust the sympathy of your correspondent for the shareholders in the Golden Bell Compauy, who were compelled to pay their creditors will be duly appreciated. The creditors having received 20s in the £ can of course do without sympathy. Mayhap your correspondent's sympathies carry him so far that he shares the opinion of one of the contributories, that his Honor Judge Harvey "stood in." With reference to the harm the winding up of this estate will do the district, I think two of your correspondent's letters would do more harm than the winding-up of fifty Golden Bell Companies, and as to keeping capital out of ffiie district we do not want shareholders who are averse to paying their debts when a company fails. In conclusion, I am sure that if you bind your correspondent strictly to the truth and to what he knows, and compel Men to avoid personal allusions, he will never again trouble you with a column and a half, and you will be saved from allowing your journal to be made a vehicle for venting petty malevolence. I am, &c, L. Davies. Reefton, Sept. 22, 1874.