NEW ZEALAND INDUSTRIAL CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETY.

Lyttelton Times, Volume XCVI, Issue 14416, 5 July 1907, Page 5

NEW ZEALAND INDUSTRIAL CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETY.

* LIQUIDATION TROUBLES. 'A meeting of shareholders in the New Zealand Industrial Co-operative Society, Limited, of Christ church, now in liquidation, was held last evening, about ft hundred shareholders attending. Mr G. W. Hulme, one of the liquidators of the Society, was in the chair. Mr Hulme read a statement of the receipts and expenditure, showing that the receiots from all sources had been £12,4.00 "Is lOd and the expenditure £12,176 £b 7d. There was a balance at the bank and in hand of £223 16s 3d. The sale of the Society's OhristchuTch property had realised £6600, the drapery stock had been cold at 10s 7Jd hi the £, and the grocery istock at 12s 6d in the £. The payment of four dividends had absorbed £6561 2s 2d. Mr Hulme stated that the liqui-' dators had had a great deal of trouble in collecting their dues from people who had been canvassed and had taken up shares in the last days of.the Society's life. ■ Unless the shareholders were prepared to pass a resolution exempting the els Tenth-hour members from contributing, the liquidators must continue their efforts to enforce payment by legal proceedings. A shareholder said that he had takon up shares shortly before the liquidation and he had been sued. He objected because older shareholders, and some of them members of the Society's committee, were still in debt to the Society and were not forced to pay. The 'chairmani said that if there were older shareholders still in debt to the Association they would not be allowed to escape their responsibility. He did not think that any member of the committee had tried to evade his duty. The fiharcholder said that some who were ill-able to meet the demand made upon, them had been sued, and othors who were much better off had escaped. The chairman said that the process of the law was necessarily slow. A list of two hundred defaulters, who were to be proceeded against, had been given to the" Society's solicitor, and every effort- had been made to deal first with those who were best able io pay. To hold a seat on the committee a shareholder must have fully paid up his shares. a c'im-val-1/vl.iW said that the. rule as

to the committee had not been obsorved. Mr A. F. Cooper said that some or the shareholders had allowed their bonuses to accumulate and remain in the business. That money could hardly be considered share capital, hut the shareholders who were interested desired to know whether they would come in as ordinary creditors.

Mr Hulme said that the liquidators had taken the opinion of two (solicitors as to the treatment of the bonus accumulations, feeling that it would be only just that they should participate in some way in such moneys as would bo available. The opinion of the solicitors, after all possible arguments ha'l been placed before them, was that the law absolutely prohibited any claim of the bonuses on a dividend. A shareholder said that something should be done in common justice for those who had left their bonuses in the business on the representation that they were to get 6 cent for their money. Mr Hulme said that the question'of bonuses had been a matter of great difficulty and one of the many difficulties that had troubled the liquidators. There had been exceeding difficulty in- collecting the book debts. He could not understand how the book debts had been allowed to grow to some £I4OO at the time of liquidation, and he desired to remind them that in auditing the books each year he had urged the shareholders to guard against the danger of allowing; too large a credit trade. The Society's property at Spreydon was a source of some trouble. The original valuation had been £2000,' but the liquidators had offered tho place at £I6OO without obtaining a purchaser. In reply to Mi- J. A. M'Cullough, Mr Hulme said that the book debts had realised £687 for a faoe value of some £I4OO. In many cases the debts' rested on such flimsy grounds that the collection was a' matter of the greatest difficulty, if not an impossibility. Replying to further questions, Mr Hulme said that the liquidators he- e lifvecl I hnt they would be able to pay every creditor 20s in the £, but there would probably be nothing for the shareholders, it would be right that the accumulated bonuses should have first claim, if there was a surplus. Mr Cooper said that the liquidators had been taken to task for attempting to recover from persons who had taken up shares just before the liquidation and had paid only the deposit of half a crown. He thought that the shareholders might assist the liquidators by striking off the list some of the shareholders who had gone in very late. He moved—" That no share money be collected from persons who took up shares within six months of the Society's going into liquidation and paid only the deposit of half a crown.' _ Mr W. Darlow seconded the motion. Mr Down said that it would not be right to wipe a large number of names off the list. He thought that only those who were considered by the

liquidators to be unable to pay should be exempted. Mr M'Cullough said that it would b« a great mistake to let it go forth that for six months the cormmittee, knowing that the Society was practically in a state of liquidation, had gone on taking money from new shareholders. - The suggestion would be that the Society had tried to swindle people, but in point of fact the committee had acted in good faith, not knowing the state of the Society. Mr J. A. Efford said that when th« Society went into liquidation _ts business was actually pound a-s a going concern. Of the 1200 members not more than 300 were regular dealers at th« Society's stores, and the consequence was that the Society had no money ta Igo on with. They had done wisely ia closing down while still practically solvent. He thought that the meeting could not legally carry out the proposal made by Mr Cooper. * Mr H. Chaplin said that as soon as the committee understood the uncertainty of the Society's position, it refused to issue shares. In Rome cases deposits were refunded. The committee was perfectly honest in its inters tions all through. Mr Hulme said, in reply to a question, that those who went into.the Society in the last six months were not the only people with grievances. Some shareholders had withdrawn theii money within a year of the liquidation, and they had been forced by law to refund it. The motion was declared lost, and th» meeting closed.