Counsea: Mr. John MeNelll, of Hansons, for Petitioners. " Mr. Victor Priestwood, Crown Advocate, for Registfar of Compani Whether or not the reading of a section in the China Order-in-Council intended for the protection of the Public might be used contrary to the Interests of the public was the prob-Tem placed before H. M. Supreme Courtion Tuesday, June 9, by Me. John MeNelll, of Hansons, when he asked that the "emeers of Newmilks Ltd. be. relieved from afl penalties which they were lable for having. falled to forfeit a number of shares which were not paid up within the required period. The dim culty arose in view of the fact that most of the shares were now fully pald up.
Under the China Order-in-Councit, shares in a company must be issued fon the basis that if they are not fully paid up.within three months they must be forfeited. Some 3,760 "shares, which formed the subject of the petition that day, were by Newmilks Lid. about two years were partly paid for, the months period. With the exception of about 60 shares, which were sub-'Sequently forfeited, these shares were not actually fully paid-up until early five months had MeNelll informed the ce Section 174 (2) of the Hongkong Company's Ordinances stated that the "oficial receiver shall be any person appointed in that behalf by the Judge." 'The Hongkong Ordinances were almost similar to the Companies' Act in England, with the exception "of sub-section (2), which he submitted had been inserted to meet local conditions, and meant that anyone, not necessarily officer of the court, could be appointed liquidate:
Text read from the printed page and cleaned; old type leaves the occasional error.