The Sun.
London, England, 1847-11-17 00:00:00

S U

N

~.. --4-_,..:,1 r.
--=-:----__,___,,": \
".,,
Js
(...,_
_:
THE BIRMTNGRAM AN iiiiiiiiiiti '-'
:''-
Yeeterda ) I
...5\
:Itai 1.111 WAY. ' -., , ••• !•,.- :s--' - ,2-4 - e '7-.
y (Tuesday) an adjourned eOzil:trisitill _-:_-;:i.-5 /
of the above company, was held at Dee's
Reiy\al got ' -----'
Birminglaarn. Shortly after three o'cioctr, • • 7 P'7
Muntz, Esq., took the chair, when :.1 .. ,t, .. 1 ak
- - 4
I.‘lr. Mozeey .'ore and said he should be able to
relieve them from very considerable difficulty with
respect to the general meeting. They did, not in teed
to proceed any further with these specie in ee ',
ings. The proceedings were now in course of Jega -
investigation, and it was not their intention to procee
further with the meetings. So far as the object of the requisition, by which that meeting was originally con-
vened went, it was expired, and they would proceed
no further.
The CHAIRMAN said then they were to consider
that meeting as finally adjourned.
Mr. Mozeey replied, 3es. _
At four o'clock the general meeting was held at the
sonic room. - After the chair had been taken
Mr. Mozeev said that meeting wore in some de-
gree a different character from the special meeting.
They were entitled at the present meeting to ask fur
information respecting the affairs of the company
shice the last meeting, and he now rose for the
purpose of requesting information which would he in-
teresting to a large body of the shareholders. Since
the last meeting proceedings had been taken by the
directors to enforce a call, and certain proceedings
had taken place by contractors against the director.,
and it was now very desirable that they should know
what course the directors were going to take with
respect to these actions. He should, therefore, at
once ask the chairman, whether it was intended by
the directors to call a general meeting of the share-
holders, in compliance with the requisition which had
lately been presented to them."
The CHAIRMAN said, the requisition to which Mr.
Mozley alluded, was one applying to the'directors to
call a general meeting of the shareholders, in con-
sequence of certain actions which had been brought
by the contractors for the alleged non-performance
of their contracts. New it was impossible for him,
the chairman, to say what the directors would do in
that case. When the proceedings were commenced
against them, the case was submitted to counsel, with
a view of ascertaining how far the directors bad a
good bona fide case, and the answer had not yet been
obtained, and so far as the directors were concerned,
he was not prepared to say how they would act. He
had, however, no objection to state his individual opi-
nion. Ifcounsel should offer a sugestion that an honest
Boni:fide opposition could be made by the directors,
then he should say, they ought to oppose the con-
tractors ; but if, on the contrary, such an opposition
could not be made, then he should advise that no op-
position should be made at all.
Mr. MOZLEY said his question bad not been an-
swered. His question was not what the directors
would or would not do; but his .question was,
whether the directors would call a meeting in com-
pliance with the requisition which had been presented
to them ? Whether there was or was not an honest
defence against the contractors was not then the
question, because he denied that the directors had the
power to determine the question. The shareholders
were the parties who ought to decide upon the course
to be pursued; nor did he think it proper for any per-
son to undertake to say how far there was an honest
defence, for what one person might consider an
honest defence might,in law, turn out a different
thing.
The CHAIRMAN said he could not answer them in
any other form.
Mr. SPOONER, M.P., rose and said the Act of Par-
liament allowed the directors twenty-one days to
consult as to what they would do in such cases, and
the directors in the present instance would take that
time to consider. Mr. Mozley knew that they had
that time allowed, and he (Mr. Spooner) had no hesi-
tation in telling them that they would take full time
before they would tell any one the line of conduct
they intended to pursue.
A SHAREHOLDER wished to know whether, in case
counsel should decide against the directors, they
would pay the money without calling the sharehol-
ders together ?
The CHAIRMAN was understood to say that he was
not then prepared to answer the question.
Mr. Mower said it was his intention to move that
it was the duty of the directors to call a meeting for
the purpose of the requisition presented to them, and
the directors were requested to call a meeting on an
early day. He should, as on foriner occasions, put
the resolution to the meeting. -
The CHAIRMAN protested against its being put.
. Mr. Morter then put the resolution, which he de-
clared carried. After which he proposed-the follow-
ing resolution :—" It appearing that an action has
been commenced against the company by Messrs.
Peto and Eastled, resolved that such action be de-
fended, and that the directors be, and they are hereby
required to defend the same."
The resolution was seconded and carried. ' '