SIR JULIUS VOGEL AND THE TELEPHONE COMPANY.

Inangahua Times, Volume X, Issue 1506, 6 February 1885, Page 2

SIR JULIUS YOGEL AND THE TELEPHONE COMPANY.

Under the heading of " Telephone Mismanagement," last Saturday's issue of the Statist (writes the London cor respondent of the Argus on December 12) contains an article on Sir Julius's Vogel's connection with the Consolidated Telephone Cons ruction and Maintenance Company, and the charges brought against him and his fellow directors. It appears that in the month of May last the shareholders, dissatis fied, with the management, appointed a committee of investigation to inquire into the affairs of the Company. The Committee reported shortly afterwards, making grave charges against the directors, in consequence of which they resigned. More recently the Committee issued a supplementary report, in which its former charges are reitered and made more clear and specific. The piincipal allegation is that several of the directors allotted to themselves shares largely in excess of the numbers applied for, because between the date of application and the date of allotment the shares bad gone to a premium, and, consequently, that those directors enriched themselves to the detriment of the Company. The Committee reported that " Sir Julius Yogel had allotted to himself 3330 shares, and for the balance of the 15.000 shares (alluded to in the former report) he handed the secretary a list of nominees. This list was, unfortunately, given back to Sir Julius after the shares had been placed in the nomines' names, so that no record is left of the parties receiving the shares. Colonel Gourand had allotted to himself 3250 shares, and to his norniness 10.200 sharps ; of these is a record, as Colonel Gourand has placed his name against them in a red ink in the allotment-book ; 1000 shares were also alloted to Mr Powers — Colonel Gourand's nephew — making a total of 14,450. Mr Carnegy had allotted to himself 500 shares, and to one nominee 2000 shares." The Committee go on to till their |fellow shareholders that " Sir Julius Vog«l sent in a written application for 1000 shares. In the allotment register this 1000 has been altered to 5,000, and 3330 shares allotted to him. The original letter of application was not altered, nor was any further written application made by Sir Julius Yogel. On December 2, 1881, the director* declared a dividend, and sent a circnlar round to the shareholders, in which the the following appears : •lam te inform you that the directors believe they will bo in a position to continue to pay regularly quarterly dividends of ;he same amount, which is eqnal to 10 per cent, per annum.' There vr*r*> wo further rlivii^vuls rl».'are(l — nnf O' . \piil 24, nt-2. witb t.be "jrvouvN ;■:■ , ';"• o^nr> y. •■-^ ' - •■» v\ T nc ' . ""..

1382; since then no dividend. Sir Julius Yogel sold the greater part of his shares between December 1881 and May 1882. Prices ruling, taken from the official list of the Stock Exchange : December 1881 to «nd of March 1882, I£, 4 ; April 1882 to April 26, 1882, li If; May 13, 1882, I£, If i On the latter date marks of business done occur as high as 2 1-1 6 th. On May 1 5 the price was 2|d to 2fd, with marks as high as 3." The above it quoted verbatim from the report Commenting on these statement* the Statist, remarks that " the Coni'mittee took counsel's opinion nt» whether the profits made by Sir Julius can be recovered, and counsel advised that they can. It is often contended that directors are not bound to allot, even when no reasonable objection can be made to applicants ; but even if this be so, counsel is ef opinion that the directors, being agents for the Company, are hound to account to the Company for the profits made by them as its agents. If, on the other hand, dire* - tors are bound to allot were no reasonable objection can Ue made, and were sufficient applications «fc*re> been sent in, then it is evieVpMhsjt, liabilfy attaches to th» dnWtorl The Committee, at the farther Ming meeting (on Decmcber 16) will ask authority from the shareholders to proceed against Sir Julias, and, for every reason, we hope the Authority will be given. It is desirable that an opportunity should be afforded to a g n'leman who holds high office under the Crown to vindicate his character ij he can. On the other hand, it is equally desirable, if he cannot, that th« shareholders should recover the money they are entitled to." The case of Colonel Gourand differs from that ef Sir Julius Vogel's in one particular, which m»y or may not place him in a better position ia the <ye rf the law. It appears that be resigned previously to the disposal of his shars, and that after the bulk of them were told he resumed his plate at the Board. The colonel, however, with several of bis co-directers is implicated in another charge arising out of complicated in another charge arising oat of complicated transactions with a telephone patentee and rival telephone companies. Bat Sir Jalius Yogel is not concerned in this business, except as a witness. Is con* eluding its article, the Statist states : " There is only one other small point to be noticed. It is that when the Consolidated Company got htto difficulties Sir Julius Yogel, as chairman of the Company, stated, with the directors's concurrence, that the directors wonld draw no fees while the Company vas not paying a dividend. Yet no sooner had the Committee of Investigation brought about their resignation than Colonel Gonrand, Mr Carnegy, and Mr Spensley applied for their fees, asserting that they were not bound by Sir Julias Vogel's statement, and had never authorised him to make it" At the meeting of the Company, announced for the 16th inst., at the Cannon-street Hotel, resolutions will be proposed for the adoption of the reports made by the Committee of Investigation, the payment of the Committee's legal and other expenses out of the funds of the Company, and the adoption of the Company's annual report and accounts. On the termination of tbe general business, an extra ordinary special meeting is to W held for the purpose of passing resolutions reducing the capital of the Company from £800,000 to £243,787, and writing off 5s from each tf the £1 shares, and making certain ahfr> ations in the articles ef association.