SUPREME COURT.

Star (Christchurch), Issue 6313, 10 August 1888, Page 3

SUPREME COURT.

In Chambers. | This Day. ; (Before His Honor Mr Justice Ward.) ' COMPANIES ACT, 1882, BE WAIHOU GOLDMINING COMPANY, LIMITED. In.this case, which had been adjourned from July 13, Mr Spacfc man applied for an order to examine T. W. Maude and F. H. Barns. Mr Joynt asked his Honor to extend the adjournment for a fortnight in order to ! allow of the completion of the arrangements pending at the time of the former adjournment. In suppoit of his application, he read an affidavit of Mr W. H. Hargreaves, the liquidator of the Company, to the effect that, as liquidator, he called an extraordinary general meeting of the shareholders of the Company, which was held on August 2, at nrhich he acted as Chairman, and at -which it was resolved that, the sum oJ! .£IOOO received by Mesßva Harper and CD. from Mr J. B. Smith having' been paid by them to the official liquidator, in terms of a resolution of a general meeting of the Company held on Juno 27, a Committee should be appointed to consider what remuneration, it any, Messrs Hai'per and Co. were entitled to receive for their services, irrespective of their ordinary charges as solicitors to the Company; that the sum of .£IOOO received by Messrs Acland, Barns and Co. from Mr J. B. Smith, having been paid by them to the official liquidator, the question of what amount, if any, Messrs Acland, Barns and Co. -were entitled to receive for their services in connection with the formation of the Company should be referred to a Committtie consisting of the official liquidator ani eomo person appointed on behalf of Iffessra Acland, Barns and Co ; that the official liquidator should- be authorised tt> sign and seal an agreement for release fr om Mr J. B. Smith, dated Dec. 28, ISS7. I" pursuance of the last resolution, he (Mr Hargreaves) had executed a deed mutually releasing Mr Smith and the Company from all the agreements, &c, made between them, and expressly sti pulating that all moneys paid Mr Smith at the date of a certain offer of Dec. 28 1887, or to his account, should be retained by him and unaccounted for. The efficial liquidator firmly believed that J. B. Smith had executed a similar deed of mutual release. ! The Committee had not yet arrived at a decision as to the remuneration, if any, to be paid to Harper and Co., and no award had yet been matte with ruference to the I question of what amouni-. Achmd and Barns were entitled to recewe. Mr Joynt stated that the awards would have been arrived at before now, but for the necessity for giving noticy of certsiu extraordinary meetings. . , Mr Spackman opposed the application for adjournment, an|d read an altdavit by himself, detailing tlf e steps whicl* he had I taken to demand the refund of tho sum of i £2000 paid to Messrs Harper and Co., and Messrs Acland, Bnrns and Co., cii promotion money, and stating that on July 5, a solicitor from the office of Me3srs Harper and Co. had informed him that th^ £2000 claimed had been paid to the official liquidator. He thereupon applied for a.ld obtained an adjournment oi' the case for a week. However, the solicitor /jallisd on him again, and infcormed him that h© had not been authorised to make his former statement. On writing to Messrs' Harper and Co. for an explanation, be (Mr Spackman) received a reply to tho effect that the solicitor had niistb l r en his instructions, and tha* the paymonfc had been made in accordance with certain arrangements, which were irrespec tive of the proceedings in which he whs concerned. He had written to Mr Harj: leaves, who had replied confirming Messrs Harpers' statement. He had beun informed that the cheque for £2000 vent to the official liquidator had not been presented for payment, and h«> had reason to believe that the account of the Company »t the Bank wa3 overdrawn £520. He had givan the liquidator notice to appear at the Court, but Mr Hargreaves had not done ex >. Mr Spackman submitted that as Messrs Harper and Co. had stated that the arrange* aents referred to in Mr Hargreaves' affidavi i had nothing to do with the proceedings v.-ziich lie was taking-, they were not entitle d to an adjournment. He believed that the resolutions referred to had been carnai t by the shareholders under a misconception, as to the best of his knowledge and bt) ief the money had not been paid to the official liquidator. „.1.1.1 His Honor said that, on the other han- t, the affidavit of the official liquidator showed that it had been paid. Mr Spackman said that a cheque had been Bent, but it had not been presented. Ho submitted that afc all events there w.ns sufficient ground for an order to examir.e the official liquidator. . His Honor said thut the question he bad to decide was whether there was reasonable ground for an adjournment, and he cactainly thought that there was. The application would be ad journed for a fortnights. Mr Spackman asked if his Honor wouHd grant a summons to .the official liquidator to come up for examination. Mr Joynt thought that the examination of the official liquidator should not take place before that of the other parties. Aiter some further discussion, his Honor said that the application would be adjourned till the same clay as the other one.