DEAL IN SHARES

Southland Times, Issue 18972, 20 June 1923, Page 5

DEAL IN SHARES

CALLS NOT PAID ALLEGATIONS OE MISREPRESENTATION (Per United Press Association). WELLINGTON, June 19. A call on shares made by the Petrotite and Challenge Heaters, Ltd., was the subject of an inquiry at the Supreme. Court, when the company took action against Henry Harper Major Bodley, dairyman, Wellington, to recover £406 5s and interest on that amount. According to the statement of claim defendant was a member of plaintiff’s company, being holder of 1625 shares. Defendant was indebted to the plaintiff company in a 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. He was also indebted in a similar sum on 1625 shares made payable on November 7, 1922, and on November 23 the shares were forfeited in consequence of non-payment by defendant of calls due. The Articles of Association of plaintiff company provided for payment of interest on all calls in arrears at the rate of £6 per cent, per annum, from the date the sum became payable. Defendant had refused to pay the sum and for those reasons plaintiff company claimed £406 5s and interest on that amount at the rate of £6 per centum up to the date of judgment. The statement of defence set out that defendant became a shareholder under certain circumstances. No such call as alleged by plaintiff company was even made by the directors of the company, and if it was made on him, no notice of call was given him. It was admitted that on November 23, the shares were forfeited, but it was stated that, prior to that date, defendant had voluntarily repudiated the shares or the contract to take same. As second defence it was alleged that defendant had been induced to become a shareholder in the company as the result of certain misrepresentations made in respect to the prospects and extent of the business. In view of these representations defendant took shares and paid over a sum of £lOl5 12s 6d. His Honour raised the question as to whether defendant could allege misrepresentation against the company of which, in actual fact, he was one of the promoters. It was decided to argue this point later. The case was. unfinished.