Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

13. In regard to the objection, that the chairman closed the doors during the taking of the second poll, in my opinion, he was clearly justified in doing so having regard to the fact that this was not an ordinary meeting of a company, but a meeting in which special precautions had to be taken in view of the rivalry between the two groups. Although in an ordinary meeting the doors may be kept open, yet in the present case, it was, in my opinion, open to the chairman, if he thought it advisable, to close the doors during the taking of the poll. As to the checking of the proxies with reference to Articles 71 and 76 of the Articles of Association of the company, no substantial ground has been shown for thinking that a scrutiny would really give a different result, in view of the large majority obtained on the defendants' side. The probabilities are that the objections on either side would tend to cancel each other, just as Mr. Mitchell found that out of twenty-four shareholders who were present and Voted, although they had also given proxies, eleven were 'ayes' and thirteen 'noes'.

14. In regard to the objection that no scrutineers were appointed, it is sufficient to say that there was no request made to the chairman at the time for their appointment, and, the ordinary rule is that scrutineers need not necessarily be appointed. I agree with my learned brother that substantially there is no reason to think that the result of the voting would be materially altered by an inspection of the records, of which inspection is sought, or by a scrutiny into the voting both by person and by proxy I think this is clearly corroborated by the admission of the former secretary of the company, who gave evidence that he knew that the majority at the meeting was against them and so he left as well as by the statement of Mr. Mitchell that one of the plaintiffs, Mr. Rangall, told him, when he was asked whether he was going to vote, 'It is no good' and pushed past him. In my opinion, there can be no doubt that there was a strong majority against the appellants; and so far as there may have been an irregularity on the part of the lower Court in not allowing inspection of the register of the company and the proxies, etc., it is one which falls, in my opinion, under Section 99 of the Civil Procedure Code, and affords no ground for reversing the decree of the lower Court. The inspection of these documents should perhaps have been allowed in view of the fact that they were appended to or referred to in Mr. Mitchell's report, and so may be said to have been part of the proceedings put in evidence in regard to the result of the meeting. But it is not quite irrelevant to note that there are restrictions in England in regard to the inspection of ballot papers in elections both to the House of Commons and in regard to Municipal elections, as stated in Halsbury's Laws of England, Volume XII, at pp. 428 and 511. Such inspection cannot be obtained without an express order of the Court; strong grounds for making such an application must be shown, and the Judge must be satisfied that the application for it is made bona fide. I do not say that this applies to the present case because these restrictions are statutory; but it does show there are s me considerations against a free right of inspection of voting papers in a case like the present.