CRYSTAL PALACE'S FATE.

New Zealand Herald, Volume XLVI, Issue 14235, 4 December 1909, Page 2 (Supplement)

CRYSTAL PALACE'S FATE.

CHANCERY COURT ORDER FOR COMPULSORY WINDING UP. An order has been made by the Chancery Court for the compulsory winding up of the

Crystal Palace Company on the petition of the Prudential Assurance Company, which, holds £20.000 first debenture stock* "■'. The order will not involve the immediate closing of the Palace to the public, and it is I intended to carry out the engagement*' which: have already been arranged. *< i :i<ijH . • *■ The petition was opposed by Messrs. Ind Coope and Co.. who claimed £62,000 as due to them; Messrs. Lyons and Co. had advanced £15,000; and the Norwich Insurance Company £25,000. In all, it was said, .febe company .was indebted to the extent of £100,000. '...■,.--. ; ; ~ .•.,; ■-■■,'':,,-,,:■ •;;■.:; :'■,- Mr. Danckwerts, K.C., for the petitioners/ said the Crystal Palace Company was originally constituted by Royal Charter,.and regulated further by deed of , settlement. The company seemed to have been in difficulties quite from the beginning, and in modern times those had been of an increasingly formidable character. He had the support for the petition of £185,000 of stock. -« Judge Swinfen Eady: Is the interest of the first debentures in arrear? ~"'■•''■ Counsel: Everything. There is a large amount of indebtedness, about £100,000, immediately payable, which the i company have not been able to pay to a number of unsecured creditors. There are a number of bills of exchange which have been dishonoured. : ■ • »■' ' Counsel' mentioned that the petition had stood over from May 27 in view of the presentation of a reconstruction scheme. No practical scheme, however, was possible. 'If was admitted that the company was unable to pay its debts and was insolvent. v : Mr. Jenkins. K.C., who appeared for second debenture stockholders, and a committee of the same opposing the petition; said the company as a going concern was unable to pay its debts. ' . The Judge: Commercially insolvent? Mr. Jenkins: Yes. ."..«> • The judge said if a-winding-up order was made that would not restrict the power of Parliament to deal-with the future of the company. By allowing the petition to stand over from time to time every opportunity had been given to those opposing the petition to bring forward a scheme, but no scheme of a practical nature, had up to the present been presented. The company was obviously insolvent, and the petitioners had made out a case for a winding-up order.'