Industrial Building Society

Star (Christchurch), Issue 6541, 9 May 1889, Page 4

Industrial Building Society

SPECIAL MEETING. A special general meeting of the members : of the Industrial Building Society of Canterbury was held at the Oddfellows' Chambers yesterday evening. There was ;a large attendance, and Mr H. Crooks, ;Chairman of Directors, presided. Mr F. A. Cook brought forward a series of motions for amending the rules No. • 8 to 17: — (1) By making the number of Directors twelve, six to retire annually instead of Bix, three retiring annually; (2) by increasing the quorum of Directors from three to five; (3) by expunging Eule 17, which provided for a General Committee of twelve members to assist the Directors. Mr Widdowaon moved, as an amendment — "That the question of the alteration of Kules Nos. 8 to 17 be referred to the Directors to report to a future general meeting." Mr C. Samuels seconded the amendment, which, after some discussion, was negatived. Mr Cook's series of motions was then carried by 73 votes to 68. j Mr Cook moved — "That Eule 23 be altered to read as follows: — 'The Secretary and two Directors shall attend at the Society's office on every alternate Tuesday, from 7.30 to 9 p.m., to receive subscriptions and other inoneyu.' " The motion wa3 agreed to nem. con. On tho niotion of Mr Glanville, seconded by Mr Kitchens, rule 24 was altered so as to provide that any Director not attending in his turn on a subscription night, or finding a substitute from among the Directors, should be fined lo ; and that should the Secretary fail to attend, or find a responsible substitute, should be fined ss. On the motion of Mr A. Clarke, seconded by Mr J. L. Scott, rule 3-1 wav altered so as to read— "The method of appropriation shall bo by ballot and sale alternately." Mr A. Clarke moved an alteration to rule 35, bo as to provide for the appointment of a local expert to value property at a distance from Christchurch, when offered as security by a member; the niotion to be retrospective. Mr Clarke explained that he had offered a property in Oauiaru a,3 security. The Directors required him to pay .£lO to enable two of J them to visit Oainaru and value it, and he thought this sum exorbitant. Mr Price seconded the motion. The Chairman explained that the Directors were satisfied that they had been toting within the rules, and that the property offered was not sufficient security. They were unwilling also to accept securities at such a distance from Christchurch. After a long, desultory discussion, the motion was negatived.