FORFEITURE OF SHARES.

New Zealand Herald, Volume XXIX, Issue 9012, 18 October 1892, Page 3

FORFEITURE OF SHARES.

TO THE EDITOR. , Sib,-— you think the following of sufßwent general importance pleaseinsert in your valuable columns. In 1890 I purchased 50 shares in the Red Mercury Gold Mining Company at Kuaotunu, and held them until June 5 ." when they were sold for payment of the eighth call of threepence, payable June Ist only 26 days before. I received no notice of forfeiture, and actually, without any knowledge of what had been done, called at the company's office to pay the amount, if* b t*' on the a y they were sold, and only two hours after. Although I considered the sale so soon to be rather sharp practice, I told the legal manager that I considered it aZLISAhL my own negligence, and rehad«.« m i to , pay , me tbe balance, as they £5 eall l ed l i M each' Imagine my astonishment when he replied that the directors intended to keep 'the whole pro! fhS I™ ° re es » eciall " the Act provides tht fl^r»«T Pany ca^- sue for the bal ance if the shares do not realise the amount of calls i ue : Ti, wrofc ! the directors again admitting that I blamed myself for the sale, but asking them to reconsider the matter, and pointing out that if legal, from no other point of view could it be just, but after their meeting the manager wrote stating that they had decided to keep the whole amount. I then called upon Mr. Rees George, the chairman, at his office, but with no better result, he only adding that the directors were unanimous in their refusal. Now, sir, the foregoing is only a paltry matter, as Mr. George remarked, but had the shares been worth £5 each would the whole proceeds have been also annexed by the Board. If not, why not, the principle beirg the same? Now supposing a shareholder to live in some remote part of the country he may not have received any notice at all, and in his interest, if none other, I think my case should be ventilated. But the strangest part of all is that I have consulted four of the principal sharebrokers here and neither of them have ever known any directors before to act as I have stated above. This appears very stranpe. Can It be that the Red Mercury have some special law, or is it that other Boards know the power they possess but decline to enrich themselves in such a manner.—l am, etc., W. S. Jones.