DISTRICT COURT.—Monday.

Auckland Star, Volume I, Issue 91, 25 April 1870, Page 2

DISTRICT COURT.—Monday.

(Before Thomas Beckham, Esq., District Judge.) The usual bi-monthly sitting of this Court was lield yesterday, when the following business was disposed of: — EDWD. WATTE V. BROAD, HAUGHTON, AND KEDDELL. ! Claim for goods sold and delivered, £33. This case was called on, but there was no appearance, and the cause wjs struck out of the list. HTKKS AND OTHEHS V. SHEEHAN. Mr. Lii-k for the pi •intiff. Mr. Wynn for the defendant. This was an adjourned action to recover certain deeds, alleged to be in the possession of the defendant. Mr. Lusk said that an elaborate defence had. been set up ;it further appeared that Mr ; David Sheehan had not been served with a subpoena, he being at the Thames. The further hearing was adjourned to next Court-day. QUICK V. O'KEEFFE. In this case judgment had been entered by default of defendant for the plaintiff, £26. Mr. Sheehan now made an application to the Court to the following effect. He said that Mr. O'Keeffe was mistaken as to the day for heai-inc, being under the impression that the case would be heard on tbis morning instead of last Monday. Mr. O'Keeffe had a good answer to the action, having a claim against Messrs. Quick to a considerably larger amount than that for which they sued. Mr. O'Kceffe's claim against them was £44. Mr. O'Keeffe proposed to pay the air onnt of the judgment and costs forthwith, but he (Mr. Sheehan) would at the same time apply that if the money was paid into Court it should not be paid over to the plaintiff until Mr. O'Keeffe" had time to bi ing his cross action. The fact that Mr. O'Keeffe was ready to pay at once the amount of judgment and costs was an evidence of the perfect bona fides of the defence which -_>; O'Keeffe had to the action. Mr. MacCormick hoped that no such application would bo granted. If such applications were entertained a plaintiff might be deprived of the fruits of his judgment for an indefinite period. There was nothing to prevent the defendant bringing his cross action, whether the money was paid out of the Court or not. . - . - His Honor could not see how the defendant would be prejudiced, whether the money should be paid out or not, unless it should be suggested that there was some reason to suspect the Messrs. Quick could not meet the judgment. But might not the matter be settled upon the basis of the judgment already given. . ... Mr.'Slieehan : I shall be ;quito prepared if Mr. MacCormick will so arrange it with me to bring the cross-action next Monday. His Honor: I really cannot understand what rea .on there can be for interfering with the ordinary course of business. Mr. O'Keeffe can be in no respect damnified, for he may bring his cross action. Mr. Sheehan said he would not press the matter, and the matter dropped. TOTiTY V. CORBETT. Claim, £44.. This case was called, but placed at the bottom of the list with a view to settlement. In tho course of the day it was stated the case was settled, the plaintiff agreeing to accept £25 in satisfaction of his claim. MCKENZIE V. ROONEY. Claim, £4 17s. This was an application for the costs in the above case, which was settled. McGregor Hay said he was a solicitor practising in Auckland. Was solicitor for the plaintiff. The action bad been settled. Tbe costs, to the amount of £4 17s , were still due. Mr. Lodge said the costs, including those of the present hearing, would be £5. 3s. Judgment for plaintiff for full amount' of costs., r ,..: ~ ~-'■ ~....,...,, GOLDEN GATE GOLD MININO CO. V. YOUNG. ' Claim £56. Mr. MacCormick for the defendant. ' When the case was called on there was no

answer by the plaintiff, and a nonsuit was. recorded. ■BRITS B 01? PAE_.BI__ GOLD MINING- CO. V. HAIE Claim £22, for calls. Mr. Hesketh for the plaintiff; Mr. Wynn and Mr. Lusk for the defendant. This case was heard so far as the disclosure of the facts of the last Court-day. The contention, however, turned upon questions of law. Mr. Or. A. Jones, the legal manager, was examined at great length as 'to the manner in which the meetings were held and rules made, the mode in which the minutes of the meetings were taken. The defence was that the calls were not legally made, that the meetings were not held in accordance with requirements of the Act. These objections to the payment of the claim opened up a very long discussion as to the effect of certain omissions, and alleged errors of a purely technical character—such as " chairman," without the additional words, "of the board of directors;" the demand of payment of calls, without stating the day on which such calls were made, the mode of attestation, &c Mr. Or. A. Jones handed in a copy of the rules. The calls were made by a majority in number and value. The directors were Messrs. B. Way te, .Gimlet, Bat-ray, George, and Hill. Could not state positively tbat the rules handed in were the identical rules made, tbat is to say, whether the paper was the identical paper. Could not say whether they were ever a correct copy. Mr. Wayte had 256 shares, Mr. Kattray 128, Mr. George 188, and Mr. Gimlet 256. Knew Mr. Hale to be a shareholder, for he had assigned a portion of his original interest. He had paid the two previous calls upon his shares. Mr. Hall (the defendant) was called, and examined by Mr. Hesketh. He said be refused to pay these calls because he did not think he was a shareholder in the company. He had received a letter stating that these shares were informal, and requiring him to send them in. He gave them away as worthless. Paid a call that was duo before receiving the letter, but After its receipt the witness drew the distinction between the calls made upon him before receiving that letter, and those made afterwards. . Bemembered attending a preliminary meeting of the shareholders (in Johnson's, at Parnell), to form the claim into a company. Witness had an interest in the Pride of Parneil claim. Probably might have transferred that interest to the company, (Bules handed to the witne.s). The signature to the rules produced was in witness's handwriting. ; By Mr. Lusk ; I received the following letter from the company: — " Sir, —Please send in the scrip you now hold in the Pride of Parnell Company, as it is informal, and other scrip will be issued. " Mr. Hale." Witness : I declined to pay the calls, as the scrip was informal. I gave it up as worthless. I paid the first and second call 8 because I thought I wis liable. Mr. Hesketh said if he had known the turn which the case had taken, be would himself have gone into the witness-box. He could prove, if allowed, that the rides handed in were read over to Mr. Hale, and were word for word the same as those passed by the meeting. He hoped his learned friend would relieve him of the necessity of going into the witness-box by admitting the rules. Mr.. Lusk said he would relieve his learned friend of the, necessity of going into the witness box by refusing to allow him to go there. Mr. Lusk contended that no evidence had been shown that the. defendant had-agreed to become a shareholder. Mr. Hesketh (Contended it was proved that the defendant had subscribed as a shareholder, that he had paid calls. ',:,,•: I His Honor said it was quite clear that the defendant gave up bis interest in tbe Pride of Parnell claim for scrip in the company, that-he paid calls; that he had so far accepted tte liabilities of his connection with his company, that nothing appeared to absolve him from that liability. Judgment for plaintiff. - ..:,'.. The Court then rose.