CLAIM ON SHARES.

Otago Witness, Issue 3615, 26 June 1923, Page 17

CLAIM ON SHARES.

ACTION AGAINST DAIRYMAN. WELLINGTON, Juno 19. A call on shares made by the Petrotite and Challenge Heaters (Ltd.) was the subject of an inquiry in the Supreme Gourt to-day, when the company took action against Henry Harper Major Bodley, dairy man, of Wellington, to recover £406 5s and interest on that amount. According to the statement of claim, defendant was a member of the plaintiff company, being the holder of 1625 shares. The defendant was indebted to the plaintiff company in the sum of £203" 2s 6d in respect of a second call of 2s 6d per share on 1625 shares made payable on October 7, 1922, and he was also indebted in a similar sum on 1625 shares made payable on November 4, 1922. On November 23 the shares were forfeited in eonsequence of the non-payrhent b'- the defendant of the calls due. The articles of association of the plaintiff company provided for the payment cf interest on all calls in arrears at the rate of 6 per cent per annum from the date the sum became payable until payment was made, xayment of the sum of £4C6 5s had been demanded by the plaintiff company from the defendant, but the defendant had refused to pay that sum. For those reasons the plaintiff company claimed £406 5s and interest on that amount at the rate of 6 per cent, up to the date of judgment. The statement cf defence sot out that the defendant became a shareholder under certain circumstances. No such call as was alleged by the plaintiff company was ever made by the directors of the company, and if it Was made on him no notice of the call was given to hm. There was an alternative statement that the call was not validly made. It was admitted that on November 23 the shares were forfeited, but it was stated that prior to that date the defendant had voluntarily repudiated the shares and the contract to take the same. As a second defence it was alleged that the defendant had been induced to become a shareholder in the company as the result of certain misrepresentations made in respect to the prospects and the extent of business. In view of these representations the defendant took shares and pad over the sum of £lOls 12s 6d. His Honor raised the question whether the defendant could allege misrepresentation against a company of which, in actual fact, he was one of the promoters. It was decided to argue this point later. The case is unfinished.