WAIMANGAROA DREDGING COMPANY

New Zealand Mail, Issue 1649, 7 October 1903, Page 70 (Supplement)

WAIMANGAROA DREDGING COMPANY

PETITION TO WIND UP DISMISSED.

On the 29th ult. Mr Justice Cooper* sitting in Chambers, heard a petition under the Companies Act, 1882, and its amendments t) have the Waimangaroa River Gold Dredging Company wound up. The application w r as made at the instance of Edward Robert Lssell, Joseph James Lawson, Robert Why to, Wm. Panckhursty Henry Nalir, Gustave Ernest Simon, George Hargreaves Gothard and John Maxwell Sun ley—all shareholders of the company residing at Westport. Mr Atkinson appeared in support of tho petition and Mr Weston opposed on behalf of the company. From tho facts as statbd it would appear that the company was incorporated on July 18tli, 1901), with a capital of £12,000, .£IO,OOO being contributing shares and £2OOO paid up. The directors had called up 15s per £1 share, and about £5500 had been paid up. The petition set forth that in or about June, 1902, a secondhand dredge was purchased tor £IOOO, and after a very short trial near the claim proved unequal to tho work required of it. The company had continued making calls, in spite of the protests of the Westport shareholders that the dredge was useless and no work be done with it. The allegation was also made that the company had borrowed money at exorbitant interest, and that there was no prospect of the shareholders ever receiving any dividend from their investment. Mr Weston raised tho preliminary objection that only one of tho petitioners, Mr Whyte, had paid up his calls, and that the others had no legal status to bring such a petition. His Honor pointed out that Mr Atkinson had the option of striking out the other names from the petition, or of submitting to an order of the. Court that they should pay. Mr Atkinson elected to have the names of these who had not naid struck out. After hearing argument, his Honor dismissed the petition on the main grounds that it could not be said that the object of the company had become impossible of fulfilment, and that the company was still carrying on business. He pointed out that it was not for the Court to gauge tho chances of ultimate success. Five guineas costs were allowed the company.