RIFT WITHIN LUTE

Poverty Bay Herald, Volume LII, Issue 16209, 6 December 1926, Page 2

RIFT WITHIN LUTE

FAMILY DISCORDS. PETITION TO WIND UP CHARLES BEGG CO. SETTLEMENT OUT OF COURT. In the Dunedin Supreme Court Mr. justice Sim heard! a petition by Alexander Milne Begg, praying that the company of Charles Begg and Co., Ltd., be wound up by the Court under the provisions of the" Companies Act. Mr. W. Gr. Hay, who appeared for the plaintiff, in addressing the Court, said that Mr. Alex Begg had been managing director since the inception ofthe present company in the 'sixties. The late Charles Begg established! the business for the sale of musical instruments, and it went on till he died in 1897. In 1899 the family at that stage consisting of the widow and her children, it was decided to float the family concern into a public company. The assets were then £27,000. In 1908 the company was reconstructed, and the shares "distributed amougst members of the family. The assets had increased till. to-dav they were worth £158.588. In his affidavit" Mr. Alex Begg claimed ' that the true value of the 1 assets would he somewhere about £200,000. Throughout the period the petitioner had been managing director of the company, and he claimed that- the success of the business had! been largely due to his efforts. At the present time he found himself -in .an unfortunate, position. Mr. Hay went on to trace the history of the company, and wiid that the company, being a family concern, had, with the acquiescence of the shareholders, made advances to certain of the shareholders from time to time against their holdings'in the company. At the present time the petitioner owed' to the company £12,000 in respect- of such advances. Other members of the family had also had advances. The. company now demanded from the petitioner payments of the loans made by the company to him, and had commenced an action to recover tho same.. Petitioner had confessed! to judgment, and he was not in a position to repay the money without having to resort to the shares held fry him in the company. These shares he assessed at a minimum of £41,776. It was suggested that the purpose was not really to claim the £13.000 (the £12,000" and interest). Tho whole affair had arisen out of! feeling between the members of the family. There •was no trouble till the will of Margaret Hunter Begg was considered, in 1922. Only since" then -was there any suggestion of trouble on the minutes of the company. Sir.-Hay referred to the minutes of meetings, and .suggested 1 that llis Honor would 'come to the conclusion that Mr. Alex Begg was thoroughly conversant with the affairs of the com-

pany, and knew more about them than the* others. Orders of Mr. Begg had been countermanded. His Honor: " Why doesn't a wealthy company like this settle its difficulties ia private? It is washing its dirty linen in public." Mr. Hay went on to say that Mr. Alex Begg had given a life service to the company, and was entitled to some recognition of that service. The petitioner could go no further than make the offer to retire from the directorate, mid make the company a public company. Petitioner, however, had been V forced to confess judgment. He stressed that Mr. Beggj was riot being properly treated by Charles Eric Begg, who, to a large extent, was usurping his •position as--, general manager. C. E. Begg was b©m<? snpportijd by his two aunts, Mrs. Wishart and Mary Jane Begg. Mr. Hay went on; to say thei*e was every reason whv the companw should be made a public company. It had assets of nearly £200.0C0. It was unfortunate, repeated Mr. Hay. that the affairs had to be made public. After 1 the luncheon ' adjournment it was announced an agreement had been reached l between the parties, and would be signed for presentation at the Court on Tuesday.