SUPREME COURT.—In Banco.

Auckland Star, Volume II, Issue 11, 30 August 1871, Page 2

SUPREME COURT.—In Banco.

WEDNESDAY, AUGUST 30. [Before His Honor Sir Gh A. Arney, Chief Justice.]

The usual weekly sitting in Banco was hell this morning. The Hazexbanx Gold Mining Company v. Ckosbib and Otheus.—Mr. Bees for thi company, Mr. Hesketh for the defendants.— This was an application for specific relief bi supplemental bill to authorise a fresh trial and for an injunction to restrain the defen dants from dealing with the property in tin meantime.—Mr. Rees continued the argu ment, contending that Stevenson being i director of the company, and joining Crosbie and advancing him money to take up a new lease, was guilty of a breach of trust The authorities contained numerous caset showing that parties to a breach of trust wen guilty of a fraud. Crosbio was manager o: the company, Stevenson wus director, and ir that capacity advanced money for the purpose of defeating the company, to which he held tin important relation of managing director.— His Honor: There is no doubt that Stevenson placed himself in an equivocal position. It was his duty to do all ho could for the company, that is assuming the companj had the most ordinary anxiety for their owi! interests. Up to advancing the money tj Crosbie, Stevenson seemed tho only direeto who was anxious to do his duty. And £ directors would not do their duty, it was ii answer to say that one of them lived atk distance, that one lived in England, or anothfr elsewhere. Then came the maxim t>llaw vigilantibua non dormientibus. The whdo of tho facts which wero proved at the trial had been submitted to the jury. It does ii>t appear that any new facts havo been discovered which would constitute a wholly riw case. The facts alleged to have bonn sp ec disoloaed wore by way of addition to tiflLse already known, without giving my new 'riSfec-

tion to the inquiry or to the interests in dispute. How could tho Court be asked, under such circumstances, to place itself in the position of a jury? Have not the plaintiffs a right to come to the Court and ask for a decree ? And would not the issue under which the defendant claims certain rights to exist then proporly come on for discussion ?