MEETING OF CREDITORS.

Otago Witness, Issue 1892, 15 May 1890, Page 10

MEETING OF CREDITORS.

Bb Jamb Callksdkb a«d Rliza Callkkdkk. The first meetings under the Bankruptcy Act in connection with the petitions of insolvency of Jane Baird Oallender and Bliza Oallender were held at the office of the Official Assignee on Friday afternoon.

The proceedings in re the petition of Jane Baird Callender were first taken, the only creditor, the Equitable Insurance Company, being represented by Mr Maxwell. Jane Baird Callender having been sworn stated that she admitted owing the sum of £28 lit 8d to the Bquitable Insurance Association, the did not owe money to anyone else. She sold the shares through Mr Quick, and did not know for some time after that tbe company had declined to tranffer them. The statement produced was true in every respect. Witness had no means, no property, and was not earning anything. The written statement put in was as follows:— On the Ist of March 1888 I was proprietor of 100 shares in the Bquitable Insurance Association of New Zealand, on whioh date one call of 6d per share was due. On that day Mr Quick, sbarebroker, sold them on my account, the buyer paying calls due, transfer fee, and other expenses. On the transfer being presented the directors declined to accept it, but retained the transfer and fee, and no official intimation was ever sent to me that the transfer was declined. All notices addressed to me from the company were regularly returned to their office. Lately they have been insisting on payment of calls in arrears, which up to the 30th of March 1890 amounted, with interest, to £18 16s 3d. My sister BLza having held 250 sharei in the same company mad under the same circumstances as myself, received an account of calls in arrears amounting to £47 Os 7d, making between us a liability of £65 16s lOd. The company have boen offered that sum on oondition that the shares, so far as we are concerned, be cancelled. This the directors declined to accept, although they were intormed that thin was all that we could do in the matter. As I have no means to meet these and future calls no other course is open to me than to obtain legal relief. Mr Maxwell, manager of the company, made a statement to the effect that there was nc doubt that, on tbe sale of the shares, through some irregularity in the management of the offioe in times gone by, no written notices were sent out for a long time that the transfer was not allowed by the board. But the parties had become pretty quickly aware of the fact. The company had tried to obtain payment of calls for some time past, and an offer had been made to the directors of £65, provided that the ladies' names were removed from the share list. This the directors refused, as they had no power to remove the names under the circumstances. Besides, this offor only represented a payment by the Misses Callender of £10, as the other £55 was from a totally different source. The directors being aware that the shares had been aold, were anxious that Mr Callender should tako proceedings on behalf of his daughters against thu buier of the shares with a view of recoveriug tho calls. This Mr Callender had refused to do, unless the directors agreed to remove his daughters' namoi from the register whether he won or lost the c**«. The directors had even informed Mr Callender tlm:, if tbe sum olaimed, less about £6, were paid to Mi< company, the directors had a name which they wi«m prepared to place on the register instead of thoen <*' the Misses Oallender. There was in fact only al.nui £30 to come out of their pockets to settle tho um.W>>

• >n the grounds he had stated he must eppoeu llie discharge of the bankrupts. Mr Oallender stated that the company had declined all overtures he had made on behalf of )u* daughters, as would be seen by a letter he had rt ceivedfrom the company, which he now handed in to the assignee. They had threatened therein that if he did not take proceedings against the buyeia <rf ,t)ie "hares they would take proceedings against his daughters.

Mr Maxwell here pointed out that he himself bm\ made a verbal offer on b»half of the directors to IS--Calleuder ;to remove his daughters' names from tlishare list on payment of the amount he had named Mr Oallender said that no formal offer had bewi made by the directors in a businesslike manner, ttvd that they had, on the contrary, formally declined hit overtures.

Eliza Callender, on being examined, made a statement very similar to that made by her sister, tho only point of difference being that she was earniug £30 per annum.

The Offioial Aitignee said he had no power to do anything except sue the party who had bought thf shares, and that he was willing to do if be had • guarantee for cost*

Mr Maxwell said the remarks he had made in the other oase would apply to this one. He wished it u> be distinctly understood that the directors of th« Bquitable Insurance Aisooiation had not acted iv this matter in any unbuslnesilike or harsh manner. Their names being on the share register, and th* Misses Callender being responsible for the calls, the directors could not treat them differently from other shareholders. Everything bad been tried to avoid unpleasantness. He would mention again that tim» after time the Misses Oallender had been requested through their father to take proceedings against tho buyer of the sharei, and the directors went so far as to guarantee the costs of tho action. Mr Callender had, however, become unreasonable, and desired to stipulate that not only should the costs be paid, but that his daughters' names should be removed from the share register whether the case was won or lost. With this last condition it was utterly impossible for any board of directors to comply. Then the directors made another proposal that the names should be removed from the register if the calls up to tho 16th were paid, as they had someone who would take over the shares if that were done. It was a painful thing to take proceedings against ladies, but a public company b.Bd to treat everyone alike, t.nd it. would be rery damaging if it went forth that the daughters of the auditor of the company had been let off by havtng their shares forfeited Mr Callender said the whole thing had been dono by correspondence. He had never understood for a moment that it was an official intimation that if he paid a certain sum the names would be removed from the register.

Mr Maxwell remarked that the offer was still opeu, and the present proceedings might be annulled. Mr Oallender replied that he would not do It now. as be had been foropd into this position. Mr Maxwell said he had not been forced, for no summons had been issued by the company. The Official Assignee did not think that on any reasonable view there was anything that could be olaimed as assets, and was of opinion that the court would not allow such small earnings as thoie of Miss Eliza Oallender to ba annexed. The only remedy was to sue for the recovery of the amount due from the person who had bought the shares. Mr Maxwell asked if it was not a peculiar thin<{ that these ladles should ruah into bankruptcy without seeing what oould be got in the way of assets ? The Official Assignee thought that if there wai any blame it must attach to the father, who was an experienced business man.

Mr Maxwell said it was the father he did blame. The proceedings were then adjourned sine die.