LAW REPORTS.

Dominion, Volume 4, Issue 1172, 6 July 1911, Page 3

LAW REPORTS.

COURT OF APPEAL. AN INSURANCE COMPANY'S PETITION. TO ENLARGE ITS SCOrE. The first case heard by the Court of Appeal at the current sittings was taken yesterday morning, when their Honours had before them an application by tho Now Zealand Insuriuuj? Company, Ltd. On the Bench were the Chief Justice (Sir Robert Stout), and their Honours Sir Joshua Williams, Mr. Justice Dcnniston, and Mr. Justice Edwards. Tho application of the company was for leave to alter its memorandum of association to as to enable it to enlarge the scope of its business. This application was first made in the Supreme Court at Auckland, and Mr. Justice Edwards ordered its removal into the Court ol' Appeal. The company was incorporated in 1302 under the Joint Stock Companies Act, 18(10, as an unlimited company and' was registered in 180G as a limited company, in accordance with the provisions ol ti'lo Companies Act, 1003, and the Fire and Marino Insurance Companies Act, 188!). Its registered office is at Auckland and its capital is -£1,500,000, divided into 150,000 paid-up shares of .£lO each. The memorandum of association confines tho company to insurance business. The proposed additions would enable it to do all kinds of trust and agency business, and j all kinds of guarantee business; also to establish or assist any institution for the benefit of its employees. The petition stated that the extended objects were necessary for the due working and development of the company's business in accordance with the practice of assurance companies of tho kind now prevailing in New Zealand. It was also affirmed that tho company had plenty of capital to work its business and the proposed additional business, and that its assets were far more than sufficient to pay all its debts and to make good the whole of its paid-up capital. Sir. H. P. Richmond appeared for the company. There was no appearance against the application. Counsel stated that no creditors objected to the proposed alterations, and there were 110 dissentient shareholders. Nobody outside the company could be injured. Sir Joshua Williams asked whether the name of tho company ought not to be altered, so as to indicate its enlarged scope.' _' Mr. Richmond admitted that the Court, in granting the application, could make such a condition. Proceeding to argue the'legal aspects of the matter, counsel submitted that the Court could confirm an alteration as fundamental and sweeping as could bo made by a reconstruction of the company, provided that the interests of creditors or of a dissenting minority of shareholders would'not be'injurei:, and provided, further, that any one of the grounds for alteration set oiit in subsection n of section IG2 was shown to exist. The power of >the Court under sub-section 5 would be liberally interpreted, and the Court would regard as convenient and advantageous those things which the shareholders, as business men, decided upon. The Coun would not set itself up as an expert revising body to decide upon the convenience of business changes. The Court need not consider the wisdom of the proposed alterations, but had only to decide whether the proposals were fair and equitable, as .between different classes of members. Judgment was reserved. ADDITIONS TO THE CAUSE LIST. MEWHINNEY V. MEWHINNEY. Mr. T. S. Weston (for Oliver Mewhinney) asked the Court of Appeal'yesterday for leave to set down the . case of Mewhinney v. Mewhinney for Jiearing during the" current sittings. He said that Mr. A. Gray, for the other side, had no objection. ■ Leave was granted. Mr. Gray (for Mrs. Mewhinney) asked that, the case should bo taken as early as possible. He' suggested that it should come 'on next after the cases'for which fixtures had already been made. Tho Chief Justice, after conferring with his brother Judges, said it had better stand over for a few days. Tho appeal is against a judgment by the Chief Justico giving to Nettie Lena Mewhinney tho custody of tho children of the-dissolved marriage of the parties. TO-DAY'S BUSINESS. CRIMINAL APPEAL CASE. The case of Rex. v. Sadlet is to come before the Court of Appeal at 10.30 a.m. to-day. Walter Richard Sadler was charged at Christchurch last May with the murder of Ethel Bradley, and the jury found a verdict of manslaughter. Leave was given to apply to the Court of Ap- 1 peal for a new trial, on the ground that I the verdict was against the weight of ; evidence. _ Harry Alexander Jack was 1 also charged, and it iwa's decided to postpone his trial until after the judgment 1 of tho Court of Appeal. . t

The Canterbury caso of Pidgeon and others v. Nnrby was yesterday added to the list for the present sittings.