Robert F Masterton (1866- )
Company Secretary
Robert F Masterton trained as an accountant in Glasgow and later in life served as Company Secretary with a number of businesses connected with Rhodesia. Newspaper references to him tend to be in the business sections.
Genealogy
Robert F Masterton is the fifth of eight children and third son of James Masterton and Susan Fraser. James's father, also James, practised as a veterinary surgeon in Scotland. The trail goes cold beyond that. A small tree for this group has been labelled 'Edinburgh (3)'. Details of Robert's immediate family and ancestors can be found at the following link.
The Scotsman
LIMITED.
Head Office - 129 St VINCENT STREET, GLASGOW.
GUARANTEES DEBENTURES; HERITABLE BONDS, &c.
Accepts Cautionary Obligations, acts as Trustee for Debenture Holders, and assists in Converting Businesses into Limited Liability Companies.
Offices, Secretary, and Staff provided for Public Companies at inclusive terms.
ROB.F. MASTERTON, Secretary.
129 St VINCENT STREET, GLASGOW.
The Scotsman
18th May, 1894.
An extraordinary meeting of the shareholders of this company was held in London yesterday for the purpose of confirming the resolution passed at the meeting on 12th March last to wind up the company voluntarily. Mr Percy Inskip, who presided, moved the confirmation of the resolution, and it was seconded by Mr W. Rhodes, and unanimously adopted. On the question that Mr Robert F. Masterton, the secretary, be appointed liquidator for the purpose of winding up, Mr Lindley took exception to the election of that gentleman, and was entering into the past history of Rhodesia (Limited) when he was interrupted by the Chairman, who said that all such matters had been disposed of at a meeting of shareholders held in Glasgow. Proceeding, Mr Inskip said the.......
The Scotsman
28th March, 1906.
The Times
RHODESIA (LIMITED). - An extraordinary general meeting of the shareholders in the old company was held yesterday at Winchester-house to consider the confirmation as a special resolution of the resolution which was passed at the meeting on the 12th inst. for winding up the company coluntarily. Mr. P. S. Inskipp, who presided, formally moved the resolution, which was seconded by Mr. W. Rhodes, and carried. The chairman afterwards proposed the appointment as liquidator of Mr. R. F. Masterton. Mr. W. Rhodes seconded the motion. Mr. Percy Lindley, who intimated that he intended to propose an amendment, stated that after attending the recent meeting he communicated with several of the larger shareholders in the company and in his letter he advocated the appointment as liquidators of an independent firm of auditors instead of Mr. Masterton, and suggested the advantage of forming a small committee of shareholders to follow the fortunes of the new company and those companies with which their interests were very closely associated. He was not posing there as a large shareholder in the company; he held only 80 or 90 shares, but he paid between 30s. and 35s. each for them. A shareholder had written to him stating that he bought 600 shares at 30s., for which he was to receive 200 shares in the new company, now of the market value of 15s. each. This represented a loss of £750 on the £900 invested by this shareholder. He proposed the following amendment:- "That, in view of the fact that Mr. Masterton, the secretary of Rhodesia (Limited), is secretary of companies affiliated to Rhodesia (Limited) which have failed to comply with the Companies Act and their own articles of association, which require annual general meetings at which accounts are to be presented and directors and auditors are to be elected, a firm of independent auditors be appointed liquidators for the purpose of winding up Rhodesia (Limited)." He suggested Messrs. Cooper Brothers and Co., who were auditors to the Chartered Company, be appointed liquidators. He did not associate Mr Masterton's name with any responsibility in connexion with the breaches he had mentioned of the Companies Act or the articles of association. The companies referred to which were connected with this company, and which formed a very large portion of the assets - The chairman, interposing, stated that Mr. Lindley had addressed the meeting for some time entirely out of order, and he had desired to move an amendment which in itself was out of order. He had, however, been heard patiently on his amendment, but no useful purpose could possibly be served by reopening the discussion on the grounds which Mr. Lindley was traversing. Mr. Lindley claimed that he was entitled to justify the statements he had made in his amendment. If the chairman would not allow him to do so he would appeal to the meeting. The chairman. - Then we will appeal to the meeting. Continuing, he stated that Mr. Lindley knew perfectly well that the directors' explanations in regard to the holding of meetings and the other points raised by him were discussed not only in a published report, but at the meeting last year. Because he was unable to be present at the meeting, at which his points might properly have arisen and been discussed, Mr Lindley now wished to reopen the discussion at a meeting called for a specific purpose, which offered no ground whatever for discussion of the nature he desired to intitiate. He then asked the shareholders to indicate whether they desired Mr. Lindley to continue his address, adding that if the shareholders wished to hear him, the directors would be quite pleased to do so. Having taken a show of hands, he stated that the sense of the meeting was against Mr. Lindley, whose amendment he could not accept, as it was not in order. Mr. Lindley said it was obvious that the solicitor who represented the whole body of shareholders, as well as the directors, saw the object he had in view in trying to be permitted to enforce his point. He had publicly made a statement which he desired to justify, and he asked the solicitor to tell him the means by which he could do so. The solicitor replied that the only thing remaining for the company to do was to distribute the assets which it at present had and which consisted of the right to receive 166,000 shares in the new company. Those shares were their only asset, and any expense which was incurred by an outside liquidator would have to be met by disposing of part of them, and in that case the shareholders would not receive the one share in the new company for three in the old company to which they were entitled. The points raised by Mr. Lindley could properly and would in all probability be raised at meetings of the new company in which they would be shareholders. A shareholder inquired what the old company had done with the shareholders' money. The solicitor replied that everything had been transferred to the new company. All that had to be done now by the old company was "mere machinery," and Mr. Masterton's appointment as liquidator would be less expensive than an outside appointment. After further discussion, and acting on a suggestion made by the solicitor, Mr. Lindley proposed a revised amendment appointing Mr. Weatherley, of the firm of Messrs. Cooper Brothers and Co., as liquidator, but no one seconded the amendment, which consequently fell through.........The resolution electing Mr. Masterton was then put to the meeting and declared carried with one dissentient......
The Times
28th March, 1906.
The Scotsman
LIMITED.
£120,000 SIX PER CENT. FIRST MORTGAGE
DEBENTURES
NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN, That INTEREST COUPON No. 20 will be paid at the COMMERCIAL BANK OF SCOTLAND, LIMITED, 62 Lombard Street, London, E.C., on or after WEDNESDAY the 1st of January 1908.
By Order of the Board.
R.F. MASTERTON, Secretary.
Salisbury House, London Wall, London, E.C.,
16th December, 1907.
The Scotsman
20th December, 1907.