WAITAKI FREEZING CO.

Waimate Daily Advertiser, Volume XXIV, 31 December 1926, Page 2

WAITAKI FREEZING CO.

THE MEETING AT OAMARU. PROCEEDINGS CRITICISED. Speaking to a “Daily Advertiser” reporter, Mr M. J. Corrigan said the necessary condensation of the remarks made at the shareholders’ meeting in connection with the Waitaki Farmers’ Freezing Company, at Oamaru, had resulted in giving a slightly different impression of a statement made by him. He had been reported as saying that “he considered the directors had shown incapacity in keeping a manager who had been incapable.” What he had said was to the effect that it was not fair that the directors should find fault with the late imanager; if he had not been giving satisfaction, why had they not dispensed with his services immediately? In regard to the meeting, Mr Corrigan thought the whole proceeding unconstitutional. Unfinancial share holders had been notified, according to the advertisement calling the meet ing, that they could not take any part; yet those who did attend ..were allowed into the meeting and permitted to vote. Mr Barclay, on reading the advertisement, had telephoned the acting-chairman to protest, and on Mr Milligan telling Mr Barclay that unfinancial shareholders would be allowed to attend, Mr Barclay had communicated personally with those with whom he could come in touch. Only a few from this side of the river, however, were at the meeting. The whole thing was informal; what was the use of the chairman taking a proposition when, as Mr Smillie said, there were less than ten per cent of the shareholders present financial? Mr Corrigan added that the Chair man had stated the New Zealand Refrigerating Company was financing the Company; if he had been frank enough to say so at the start the shareholders would have known where they stood. In Mr Corrigan’s opinion, the directors had worked up a feeling over the river, and especially in Central Otago, that the Canterbury shareholders wanted to do something with the works which was against the Company’s interests. Nothing of the kind was in the minds of the shareholders this side of the river; what they wanted to do was to try and put the business on a solid basis; and the speaker said that he was still assured that the directors made an error of judgment in not taking the shareholders into their confidence at the annual meet-

mg. Regarding the vote of confidence, moved by Mr Murray, Mr Corrigan said, in his opinion, the mover was prompted by one of the directors. Mr Corrigan had protested against the unfinancial shareholders being allowed to stay in the hall, but he was ruled out of order, and they were allowed to take part in the proceedings. Under the circumstances, Mr Corrigan considers the meeting was of no value and has no standing