The Colonial Bank

Southland Times, Issue 19550, 3 May 1905, Page 2

The Colonial Bank

ITS DISSOLUTION ORDERED. Per United Press Association. DUNEDIN. May 2. An application few an order dissolving the Coloiuql Bank was before Mr Justice Williams to-duy. It was opposed by the shareholders’ committee on the grounds that they were going to petition I’urliev men! for an enquiry. After argument, the Judge made an order dissolving the bunk as from this date, the books, etc., to be retained six months, and then deetroy'ed, except otherwise ordered by the Court. (By Telegraph). ((From Our Own Correspondent.). DUNEDIN, May 2. The main reasons assigned by .the shareholders’ committee of the Colonial Bank for opposing the motion for the dissolution of that institution were that certain matters in connection with the affairs of the Bank required further investigating, and that a petition was to be presented to Parliament next session for a Parliamentary enquiry into the affairs of the Bunk.-

-In support of the motion for dissolution Mr. J. F. M. Fraser pointed out that since 1903, when a petition was presented to I’ai'llament, nothing had been done by the shareholders’ committee If it was suggested that the directory 01 the liquidators had acted in such a manner as to give shareholders a right ol action or good grounds for an enquu^r f then the matter should have been litigated long ago. The position of the present official liquidator, who bad taken up the liquidation at a very late stage was that he had finished, what remained to be done in the liquidation*. The affairs of the company were completely wound up aqd he preferred to be relieved of the liquidation. Also he had no funds in hand.

Mr Wooclhouse replied that the position taken by the opposing shareholders was this : They had for a long time been dissatisfied with the liquidation. His Honour would recollect that th'e liquidation was closed very suddenly.- The persons who were liquidators were cut out of office and the Official Assignee wqs substituted for them by Act of Parliament. They never made a report : it was not their duty io do so. The gentlemen fof whom he appeared really represented tho shareholders’ committee. They had petitioned Parliament and their petition was favourably recommended by both Riouses and it was assumed that the Government would take some steps in pursuance ol that recommendation. Since then, however. there had been a report and it was probable that the Government considered that in the first place it was desirable that a rejiort should be made before dealing with the recommendation. That repdrt came out about two months ago. The shareholders whom he represented had perused that report', and th'ought itwas of a rather meagre nature anti threw little light on the proceedings ; it was felt by the shareholders that there were matters which required further investigation. It would bo useless to petition Parliament for an enquiry if the books were ordered to be destroyed. Air Justice Williams said that but for Mr Woodhouse’s application it would bo proper to make an order for the destruction of books as the liquidation was sub- | st anti ally concluded six pr seven years ago and all debts claims would consequently be statute-barred. But what was stated in the affidavit of the sharecommittee might be sufficient to suspend an order for the destruction, though it was not sufficient to suspend an order for dissolving the company. In order to suspend it would be necessary to make out, at any rate, a prima facie case that somebody connected with the winding up had been guilty of fraud and there was no suggestion of that. An order was made for the dissolution of the company and, by consent of counsel, it was ordered that all books be retained for six months and then destroyed, unless otherwise ; instructed by the Court.