DISTRICT COURT.—Tuesday.

Auckland Star, Volume II, Issue 414, 9 May 1871, Page 2

DISTRICT COURT.—Tuesday.

[Before Thomas Beckham, Esq., District Judge.] An adjourned sitting of the Court was held this morning, for the purpose of hearing the business left over from the previous hearing. Onbhtjnga Gold Mining Company t. Natiian.—Mr. Uses for the Official Agent; Mr. Hesketli for the defendant.—The Official Agent sued in this case for a call made upon the defendant to complete the capital of the company, which is in process of winding up. The defendant refused to pay this call,on the following grounds:—He said he was one of the original shareholders in the Onebunga claim, and that he exchanged his interest in the claim for twenty-two and a-half shares in the company. The company's shares were supposed to represent £8 paid up, the shares being £10 shares. He had paid £2 per share in calls, which made up the £10, and he contended that he had paid all that he could by law be called upon to contribute.—Mr. Bees said the agreement, whatever it might havo been, was at variance with the public declaration of the company. The effect of a judgment in the defendant's favour would be that the revenue would be cheated to an extraordinary extent. — His Honor said it was quite true that the public declaration of the company was at variance with the arrangement of which the defendant claimed the benefit, but he did not see, if the statement of the defendant were in all respects correct, how he could make him pay more than he had contracted to pay. He would take further thie to consider the legal bearings of the case.— M.v. Hees said the ques tion Involved was an extremely important one, and which must affect all other cases in which exchanges of this kind had been made. He would, if His Honor pleased, bo pre/ared with the assistance of his learned fritnd Mr. Hesketh to draw up a case to be submitted to the decision of His Honor Sir (Jeorje Arney, Chief Justice. This could be done it a trifling expense where all parties were agreed to abide by such a course.—His Honor stid he would only be too glad to have the option of the Chief Justice upon' the point. H> would be anxious to facilitate the obtaining such an opinion :•. .ther than put obstacles in Hie way, Nash v. Bitgden.—This waa an acCon for illegal seizure upon a bill of sale, and after " hearing, the plaintiff agreed to accept Nonsuit. He now appealed. A legal'question was raised as to whether a plaintiff who agreed to accept a nonsuit could appeal. Mr. Hesk^h contended that he could, for a nonsuit wasV judgment of the Court, with which a plaintiff, though he should prefer to accept that, than he put out of reach of his remedy altogether, might be dissatisfied, and against which he could appeal.—His Honor said this was a peculiarly legal point, and one which the Court could not do otherwise than allow. It would, however, be desirable if the Court above should be asked at the same time to decide whether a secret understanding between parties to upset a deed could be given in evidenoe, for the whole question turned upon that.—Application granted. •„:,.>