RE THE VICTORIA QUARTZ MINING COMPANY (LIMITED).

Otago Witness, Issue 2009, 25 August 1892, Page 15

RE THE VICTORIA QUARTZ MINING COMPANY (LIMITED).

Application re John Edmond, jun., under section 105 of the act to remove his name from the list of contributories who forfeited on the 4th June 1890, and to place it on the list of those who forfeited on the 2nd January 1890.

Mr Sim appeared in support and Mr Hoskiug to oppose.

His Honor, in giving his decision, said : —

I do not know if it is necessary to decide whether under section 57 of "'Jhe Mining Coinpany_ Act 188(5 " the manager of a company is justified in taking a promissory note for the amount payable on redemption of shares under that section, but whether the manager of a company is justified or not in so doiDg, I think it is clear in the present case that both Mr Edmond and the company intended that the note should be taken in satisfaction of the amount required to redeem. This is made clear by the subsequent action of the company. During the currency of the note the company treated Mr Edmond as an existing shareholder, because on the 1-1 th of May, the note being still current, they made a call upon him in respect of his shares. If the giving of the note did not operate as payinont and redemption of the prior forfeiture the company would no 'have been justified in making that call. So far also as Mr Edmond is concerned I think it is obvious he gave the note for the purpose of being reinstated on the register. If, during the currency of the note, a dividend had become payable, presumably Mr Edmond would have asked for it. Ido not think it can be said that it was the intention of the parties that the redemption of tho shares was to depend on whether or not the note wa3 to be ultiniiitely met. The intention to my mind is clear that the redemption was to take place immediately on the note being given, and in fact both parties have acted on that assumption, tho company by making the call, and Mr Edmond by receiving the notices, and so on in respect of the forfeituie without protest. That being so, it seems to me that Mr Edniond's position is this : that whether the manager of the company was or was not justified in taking the note in satisfaction of the amount necessary to enable Mr Edmond to redeem, yet that the effect of the ransaction has been that Mr Edmond at his own equest has remained on the register in respect of hese shares until after the 9th call was made. Now that the company is in liquidation, the register being in fact in its present condition through tho instrumentality of Mr Edmond, I do not think it is open to him to say that it should be altered, or that his liability6hould be other than ihat which the register discloses it to be. I think, therefore, that the summons must be dismissed, %vith costs, LI Is. Summons dismissed accordingly.