APPEAL COURT.

Hawera Star, Volume XLVIII, 17 March 1925, Page 10

APPEAL COURT.

i BOWLING CLUB CASE. (BV. TELEGRAPH PRESS ASSOCIATIONWELLINGTON, Marc 16. At the Appeal Court, tne appeal of the Wellington Bowling Club from the judge’s decision in the Supreme Court in the action Sievwright v. Wellington Bowling Club was continued. Mr. Myers, for the appellant, relied mainly on the question of forfeiture of shares. The articles of the company provided that in the event of any shareholder failing-to pay his annual subscription his shares were to be forfeited (article 19). He submitted that the clause was ultra vires, and said the company may have a lien on the shares for the amount owing, hut that there could be no forfeiture for non-payment of a debt due to -the company other than the moneys due for allotment or calls ,on shares. The capital of the company has never been increased, nor has any portion of it ever been called upon. He submitted that this got rid of the right of the company to forfeit paid-up shares. The only payments made to the company were moneys due' for annual subscriptions and entrance fees. The property of the company would be worth, now about £7OOO. If the company’ was wound up, would not the shareholders get the surplus assets? No share was ever, allotted to Sievwright. Thez-e was no minute to this effect. Justice Sim: Sievwright’s name is on the register in respect of share 162. Mr. Myers: But there never was a transfer to him. In my opinion there never was a share to auot to Sievwright. With regard to new members and the allotment of shares, the secretary of the club put anyone anywhere. If a new member were elected, the secretary put his name in the register opposite the number of some share, and he thus became a shareholder. Justice Reid: Many clubs would welcome this chance to revise ‘their lists of members. Counsel said that article 23 was ultra vires and Sievwright- never was a member of the Company. He submitted also that article 2, which provided that shareholders can resign at will, and if they did so they foiTeited their shares, was also ultra vii'es. Counsel said that according to article 21 the majority of members of the club could resign and forfeit their shai’es, on which nothing.had been paid, and then there would remain a few members who would be liable to perform >,all the club’s obligations under a eei'tain mortgage given by the club. j The ease is proceeding. |