.kan,nao3 ....00 á ætiwoľz) .steneal
„çálatoska? awoŸ
100 á aðkwalm© (58)
100 (hoboð » Tundy szatyn:Ÿ edT
COPY.
(To accompany Enclosure 1.
3 G, Peking Road,
Shanghai, August 24,
13
1915.
My dear Sir Everard,
I can now reply to your letter of the 10th.
instant with regard to tackling the Central and North China Godown Co. and the Yangtze Wharf and Godown Co.
First, with regard to the last paragraph of
your letter, I do not see how under the present King's Regulations we can TEXEI force the Stock Exchange to ban the shares of such Companies from the Exchange, nor can we force a British Bank to close an account which one of such Companies may have with it; the reason being that such Companies do not come within the defini- -tion of enemy as given in the King's Regulations, but I feel sure that both the Stock Exchange and any British Bank would act in accordance with your wishes even if they were not legally bound to
do/80.
Subsection 6 of Section 130 provides that a Company may be wound up by the Court if the Court is of opinion that it is just an equitable that the Company should be wound up. A petition under this Subsection need not be presented by a share- -holder, and I should think it would not be difficult to satisfy the Hongkong Court that the way in which the Companies carry on their business makes it just and equitable, in present times, that
they should be wound up.
Again, Subsection 5 of Section 130 provides that a Company may be wound up if it is unable to pay its debts, and Section 131 sets out when a Company shall be deemed to be unable to pay its debts. If, therefore, we can obtain evidence that either of the two Companies in question has infringed the King's Regulations, we can issue a summons against it. The Company in all probability would not appear at the hearing of such Summons, and if we can satisfy the Court that the Company has committed the offence for which it is summoned, then we can
get