SHARE PAYMENTS

Poverty Bay Herald, Volume LX, Issue 18163, 10 August 1933, Page 11

SHARE PAYMENTS

proposed New company CLAIMS FOR REFUND A case arising out of the attempted formation of the Southern Pacific Shipping Company last year was heard in the Dunedin Magistrate’s Court before Mr. J. R. Bartholomew', S.M., when five of the provisional directors of tho company were proceeded against by three plaintiffs who purchased shares but did not get their money hack when the company failed to go t 6 allotment. The plaintiffs were Reginald Hanley Little, of Wellington, and Henry George Strong and Raymond Henry Strong, of Dunedin. The (defendants ,wleuo Sir Charles Statham, James Ross Clarke, Francis Charles Fulton Reid, of Dunedin, Walter Joseph Jones, of Invercargill, and Hugh Valdemar Johansen, of Auckland. Little claimed to recover £7O and the two Strongs £OO.

The statement of claim set out that defendants, with William Chambers (Sydney) and William 11. Swanton (Melbourne) were provisional directors of a public company intended to be incorporated and to be called “Southern Pacific Shipping Company, of New Zealand, Limited.” A prospectus was issued, and it was stated that the nominal S'al of the company was to bo ,000. Johansen was held out as the agent of the provisional directors and an office was opened in Rattray street, Johansen furnishing it and obtaining a staff. The company was never incorporated and defendants caused to be refunded to subscribers moneys paid by them, With the exception of inoueys owing to plaintiffs. Reginald Little said that he paid £7O to defendants upon representation from Johrinsen that he would be given a pbsition on one of the proposed company’s boats and that his wife would be allotted the position of children’s companion on one of the boats. Neither of these positions eventuated.

Henry Strong and Raymond Strong said that they respectively paid £l(v and £SO on representations that Henry Strong would be given a position as storeman and Raymond Strong as engineer in the company. The Strongs had been repaid £6O.

Mr. Hamer, for Johansen, said that Johansen was not defending tho case, but was consenting to jridgment on certain terms. Johansen received monfcy on behalf of the proposed company and it was not bis duty to account for these moneys. His first contention was that he received the moneys personally and that he was to allot some of his own shares to the applicants who were plaintiffs, and Johnsen was prepared to consent to judgment on those terms. After lengthy evidence had been heard the magistrate said that it was clear plaintiffs must be nonsuited, but judgment would be entered up against Johansen by consent for £l6O, and costs £lB 9s 6d.