Skip to main content
Hide Articles List

15 articles on this Page

t-------^vEije 19ort'£J Corner.…

SWANSEA. -

SOUTH WALES INSTITUTE OF ENGINEERS.

[No title]

- POLICE COURT. 1

ST. GABRIEL'S PARISH HALL.

[No title]

----OLD BREWERY (LIMITED).I

News
Cite
Share

OLD BREWERY (LIMITED). I CHARGE AGAINST THE DIRECTORS. In the Queen's Bench on Thursday in last week Messrs. Evaus and Jones, shareholders in the Swansea Old Brewery (Limited), brought a misfeasance summons against the directors ot the company. Mi. F. vViiiiams, Q.C., Mr. Lawson Walton, Q.C., and Mr. Gore Bowen were for the applicants, and Sir E. Clarke, Q.C., and Mr. Frank Evans were for the respondents—Mr. David Davies (of Cardigan), Mr. Davies (of the Prince of Wales Hotel), Mr. Davies (of De-la-Beche- street) directors; Messrs. Isaacs and Hart- land, solicitors and directors; and Mr. C'awker, auditor. From the opening speech of Mr. Gore Brown, two points of misfeasance were alleged. The first was that the directors had taken at par shares in the brewery company which could have been sold at a premium. The answer to this part of the case was that they could not have been sold at a premiu u at all. The second part of the case, which was opened at great length, was that, as the result of various negotiations, the business of the Swansea Old Brewery, the business of Mr. Davies, of Cardigan, who had a bonded warehouse and several licensed properties, and the business of Messrs. George and Sons. were together sold through Mr. Cox to a syndicate called the United Contract Cor- poration for £ 75,105, and that subsequently another company paid for them £ 100,000. The misfeasance alleged was that in the ap- portionment of the purchase money Mr. Davies. of Cardigan, had been favoured at the expense of the company. The defence was a general denial of the allegations. In the course of the hearing it was stated that Mr..Tones, one of the applicants, had got F,160 for his 40 shares, and that he was now entitled to receive £ 1,013. His Lordship said the applicant had not done so badly. Mr. Biown said the case was that there ought to have been more obtained from the property of the company. Affidavits by the respondents were put in, stating that the original shareholders had made a good profit and denying that the directors had received any secret profits. His Lordship eventually held that there was nothing wrong cr fraudulent in the re- spondent's conduct as to the allotment of shares, the purchase money transaction, and the solicitors' costs question, but as to the secret commissions he ordered that the re- spondents pay back to the liquidator the share properly attributable to the applica- tions only. and not the whole amount, as all the persons concerned in the company ap- parently knew and approved of what was going on. No costs of the motion on either side. Judgment accordingly. .1

MUMBLES.

PONTARDA WE.

BRITON FERRY

Advertising

DOCTOR'S ADVICE.

- ABERAVON AND PORT TALBOT.

BRITON FERRY