"What did you expect would be your interest in the new Company, according to the terms of that circular and_ prospectus considered it would be five shares in the proposed new Company for every share in the old Company.
Did that ct have any effect upon Kid, because had I thought otherwise far action of the meting?—It certainly should certainly have taken steps to object to the proposed measure of the directors. considered that. this last clause in the prospectus, "the holder of one share in the present Company will be entitled to five shares in the new Company," was sufficient His Loxpsurr—Had you thought you would not get five new shares for each old share you would have opposed the resolution fo¥ the change? opportunity of heard upon the subject of your shares being taking away, prior to your receiving that notice on the 13th at that meeting by any of the Were you heard or given an opportunity officials of the Company about a revision of being heard subsequent to the receipt by taking place in the course of the current year-—alrevision of the share list? you of, that notice that your shares had withdrawn 1—No.
Witness—Nothing, to my knowledge.
Between that time and the end of the Did you attend the meeting for the con-year?—No. firmation of those resolutions?—I think I Do you know whether there was any redid.—I forgot whether I did or not.—Yes, jon of the share list at the end of the Iwas tt. previous triennial period, in 1880?—So far "What did you do there?" Did you acas I know there was no revision, and from quiesce in the confirmation of those resolu-information I have received from a share" tions?—Yes, holder—Up to that time—that is, up to the time Mr. Larnax—That is not evidence. you nequieseéd in those resolutions—had His Lonpsure—I will only take it down a revision of the share list?—I did not any reason to suppose that there would "there was no revision so far as I know." Warxewntant—To go back a little, know it, up to that meeting. what was your position, Mr. Taylor, when What was the first intimation you got you became a shareholder that the directors contemplated a revision Witness—I was manager of the Chartered of the share list of the old Company?—I {3th August, "There were rumours about of no official notice before the letter of the Mayen: oak India, London and at i. Twas agent at Hankow from '1871, and I came to Shanghai as that it might take place. manager in January, 1874, and continued With regard to this prospectus issued in so up to July, 1881, May, did you get that }—I do not recollect Do you consider that if there had been getting it.
When did you receive that letter of the rorision in 1880 you would have been ilkaly to have heard of it, from your position 13th August {Somewhere about the end I most certainly should have heard of it. of August, when I returned from Chefoo.
Now, will you state what amount of premia you contributed during the time that that, when you found that they proposed to Did the take any steps with reference to you were a shareholder, distinguishing it by take away your shares?—No; I said nothing. years }—In 1878, Tis, 2,603.
I thought it was unnecessary. I considered Mr. Warsewricat—I will now put in Thad a right to the shares, and sent in my one of the documents supplied by the de-application in the usual way. fendants under notice to produce. I believe 'Did you ever sce any of the officials—this isa transcript of the contributors' ledger the Secretary or anybody—about that of the North-China Insurance Company time?—I recollect calling at the office on from 1878 to 1883 inclusive, -Ttis endorsed one occasion and asking if there was any on the cover '"North-China Insurance demand for Company: Contributions of Premia, 1878 to You did not discuss the question of the 1883, inclusive," and is known as the con-withdrawal of your shares?—Well, it was in a measure a discussion of that. I said tributors'
Mr, Laruaa—It is a summary of the as they were anxious to get rid of me I had contributors' ledger. no particular desire to remain, if I got a proper value for my stock. The Secretary Mr. Drvanioxp—Before going into that, I take the objection that that is not admi asked me my views, I told him what sable in evidence in this case. I take it considered to be a proper price, and he said that no evidence is admissible as regards there were no buyers at the price I named. the dealings between the board of directors, That was after I received the letter of the the defendants, and other shareholders 13th August. that evidence on that subject has nothin, Who was the Secretary you saw?—I think todo with this case between the plainti it was Mr. Davis. and the defendants themselves, Did you afterwards make an application His Loxnsutr—I understood the ques for shares in the new Company?—I did. tion was, what did you contribute you strike out these words in the Mr. Warewnicnt—I was going to put printed form of application—"'or any this book in, smaller number that may be allotted Mr. Drvsnronp—Then it is now necessary Why t—Because I considered that I was for me to object. It contains a number of entitled to twenty-five shares and no less, statements made by the defendants under a and to show the directors that I did not discovery order, showing the business of a large number of persons. I take the sim-"*SE Davsewosy ramutked that the wit ise their new prospectus. ple ground that evidence of dealings between ness had said he did not remember seeing other shareholders and the defendants is the new pros not evidence in the present case, There is Witness—I said I did not remember reno allegation in the petition to support ceiving it. I had seen it in the public this, and I object to its being admitted papers, and I had read the advertisement and I go further and say that no matter
Text read from the printed page and cleaned; old type leaves the occasional error.