BOWLING CLUB MEMBER EXPELLED.

Press, Volume LXI, Issue 18363, 22 April 1925, Page 12

BOWLING CLUB MEMBER EXPELLED.

APPEAL COURT'S DECISION (PKtSS ASSOOIATIOK TELEGftAjt.)

WETjMXGTOX. April 21. In the case Of the Wellington Bowling Club v. J. n. Sievwright,' the Court of Appeal delivered judgment to-day in favour of the bowling club, but refused to allow costs to the successful appellants. Mr Justice Sim stated that the four articles On which the compauy had purported to expel Slevwrightr were all ultra vires, and that n share of a member could not be forfeited and token by the company without the sanction of the Court, as this resulted in the company buying its own sliaros. The question before the Court was whether the respondent ever became a member of the bowling club. Ho was elected in 1907, and given a share that Sad been previously allotted to one Maudsley. At that time more share's had been allotted by the company than were provided for in the Articles of Association, and consequently there was no share for .Sievwright, The directors had treated Article 2.1 as valid, and when the member resigned had allotted his share to another person. Clearly M&udsloy was the owner of the share allotted to him, and Sievwright could not own it too. It was ultra vires of the company to issue shares which it did not own. The company was not stopped from showing that respondent was-not a shareholder, although it had treated him wrongly as a shareholder for seventeen years. The appeal would be allowed, but as the true facts had just been brought to light, respondent ought not to be ordered to pay costs. ' Mr Justice Reed agreed that Sievwright was not entitled to any relief from the Court. He ;<leo thought appellants- should be deprived of costs. _ Mr-Justice Adams s judgment was substantially similar to those of Justices Reed and Sim."