137
P.41
2.42
P.43
$200,000 Hong Kong branch
$130 Hong Kong Electric
S
$2,500 which is I taink a cross entry. I have not
investigated this. I cannot say that there was not a
mortgage included in the item. $260,000 is cross entry from
balance sheet of Hong Kong branch to Head Office. I discover
-ed this by tracing the original entry through journal and
books. Head Office were showing Hong Kong property, this
they transferred to Hong Kong branch. Aɛ a bookkeeping
ontry, Head Office having lost the ass et Hong Kong property
had to put something in its place so obtained amount of
asset in its rlace; i.e. inatose of Hong Kong property they
had 'loan' from Hong Kong branch. This would not have been
obvious to my one looking at balance shert. Nothing in my
examination of booke showed me that Mr. Brewer ever made a
cent apart from ealery.
Pe X. There is distinction between application and allotment
Former is a written request similar to Ex. J for allotment.
Allotment is directors agreeing to ellct shares to applicante
Articlə 6(b) states that 5 must be paid on application.
Share capital in C.D.M.1 in Ex. A shows that up to 18.6.28
15,740 shares were alloted. This document was filed on
0.7.28.
Humber of shares held by existing shareholders is
shown as 14,740. In return of allotment in Ex. A I can find
no reference to 11,330 shares. Loans amounted to 7 lakhs.
I do not consider that Ex.I shows that shareholders paid
this money due on shares first and obtained their money after
First step is for shareholder to ask for loan, then if it is
granted he agrees that it is to be repaid to pay for shares,
sad that if he doesn't pay for shares or tries to part with
them Co. has lion on them. Cash position of Co. was such
that it could never have made these loans. Any one trained
in bookkeeping should be able to draw a balance sheet. It