MAGISTRATE'S COURT.

Dominion, Volume 4, Issue 1201, 9 August 1911, Page 8

MAGISTRATE'S COURT.

•» COMPANIES ACT, A NUMBER OF CASES DROUGHT. RE REWARDING RETURNS. (Before Mr. W. CI. Ridddl, S.M.) The Registrar of Companies .prrcwdrd against five defendant companies in Hid .MagiMrati'S i.'oini. ye><crday on charges ot breaches of Section 101 of the Companies Act. IHiIS. Mr. T. Nt-iivP appeared for the Registrar, and counsel lor the defendan-ts wi-ro as follow.—i'iitea Shipping Company, J.id.. Mr. A. L. Herdmnn; Nelson, Moato mid Company, Mr. A. blair: anil North Maud Brewery Company, Ltd... Mr. E. B. Brown. The Raknnui Unll Company, Ltd., mid' the Karamea Hall Company. Ltd.. were not represented by <oun<ol. Ml the cases were taken together, the facts tin relation to tho Act) being similar.

" Mr. Ncavtf slated that, the prcoe-fdings ueiv brought under .Section 101 of the Companies Act, VM. There had been default in forwarding rjlurns. ■ There bad been an effort on tho part of the companies to comply with tho Act, but through circumstances beyond their ecnt?ol (lie meetings (required by the Act) had not been held.

Evidence was given by Mr. C. H. W. Dixon, Assistant Registrar. In Tegard to the case of the North Island Brewery Company, Ltd., he said that a return lia«l been made up as early as January 27, Wll. Endeavours to get a quorum for a meeting befc-ro the end of tho year had failed.

. Mr. Brown contended that, as the company had endeavoured to get a meeting Una had failed, it ha<l become "absolutely impossible" to comply with the section. Respecting the case against Nelson, Mrate and Company, Ltd., it was admitted that a return as required- by the Companies Act had been made up in December, 1910, but (it was statpd) no, meeting had bsen hold. The return was otherwise in order.

■ Speaking on this cme, Mr. Blair remarked that the annual general meeting had been called, but only • four of the shareholders were residents of tho Dominion; the others lived out-side New Zealand. When the meeting had' been called, one of the Wellington shareholders was ill. Another was absent in the. country, and, consequently a quorum could not be obtained. The. "holding" of the meeting was a. mere technicality. The requirements of (he section hart beeu satisfied by the sending in of the return. The position was strange, and defendants were, not really charged with failingto send in a return, but with not "holding the meeting." The Act did net really make an offence of the.fact that no meeting hod been held. It was essential for tho Crown to prove that the company had been blameworthy in not holding a meeting. In the case of ttio Patea Shipping Company, Mr. Hprdma.i stated that it was conceded by the Crown that a meeting Had been held on December 23, 1910, and that tho company had furnis'ried a return within fourteen days thereafter. They' had complied with the Act. and could not l:o convicted.' The provisions of tho section were, in point of fact, coinplied with if a company held a meeting any day in tho year. In reply, Mr. Iscave contended that the companies were liabb to havo to observe the section strictly. Tho question was a technical one. Decision was reserved. DAMAGED BOAT. '■.' (Before Dr. M'Arthur, S.M.) ■ F. Brattle (builder), K. Thomas (carpenter), Thomas Brattle (painter), and .T. Cook (carpenter), all of Kilbirnie, proceeded against Easson Limited, of Kilbirnie, to recover alleging that employees of defendant had damaged a boat of plaintiffs to the extent of .£2 10=. and had caused them to suffer to the extent of a further £2 10s. through their being deprived of the use of the boat. Mr. C. 11. Dix appeared for the plaintiffs, and Mr. Brandon for the defendant?. Judgment was given in favour of plaintiffs for .£3, and costs .£1 8;.

BUILDING MATTER. Benson and M'Mahon sued Armstrong and Combs for ,£H'-'ss.. respecting a building contract. Tho chief point was whether certain deductions from the work had been made before or after a tender hod been made by plaintiffs. Judgment was given for tho plaintiffs for ■£§ . r )S., with costs ,£l (i=. Mr. 11. Evans appeared for the plaintiff, and Mr. V. It. Meredith for defendants. . DIVIDING FENCE. Patrick Cavanagh, dairyman, Kaiwarra, sued Gerald Fitzgerald, architect, Charles Arthur Kuapp, Martin Chapman, solicitor, W. F. Barraud, and James Lockie, all of Wellington, for £o 17s. Cd., which ho alleged was defendants' portion of tho costs of repairing a dividing fence. Mr. F. G. Bolton appeared for the plaintiff, and Mr. A. Blair for defendants. Ilis Worship nonsuited plaintiff on the "round that the notico which he had served on the defendants was not in order. DEBT CASES. In the following cases judgment was given for plaintiffs by default:—Harold Webb Wliite v. Ellen Cockayne, .EG ss. 2(1., costs M 3s. Cd.; K. Kieniander v. S. Cousins, 18s., costs 65.; W. Hildreth and Son v. Edward Cockayne, .£7 35., costs Bs.; Jones and Co. v. Jno. Herbert, £6 15=., costs £\ 3s. Gd.; Wellington Traders •V-encv (assignees Kempthorne, Pressor, New Zealand Drug Company, Limited) v. Douglas Jonos, ss. 4d., costs 35.; same v Svdiicy Billows, <£U 9s. Gd., costs JCI l< (icl.; Mandel, Harris and Can- v. Goo. V Barrakat .£29 2s. fld.. costs Us.'; L.' Caselberg and Co., Ltd., v. Robert H. Mundy, £1 4s-. costs 10s.; same v. C.ias. Gordon Abbott, costs 10s;;. Wellington Trades Agency (assignee of- Kempthorne, Proper, New Zealand Drug Company, Limited) v. Hamilton and Co., <£31 is. id., costs £2 Us.; Thos. Wm. l-ishcr v. Leonard Holmes,',£l3 45., costs £\ 10s. (id.: and Liquidator of Horowhenua rarmers Mfat • Company. Limited, v. Mrs. E. Coekavne. .£O7 18s. 2d., costs'.£l 3s 6d. No "order was made in the following cases—Jas. Kussell v. Stephen John Smart; a claim for .£1 Is. Sd.; Francis M'Keuzie v. Louis Palliser, .£1 11s. 4-d.

DECISIONS DELIVERED. WAS.THERE REALLY A CONTBACT? Dr. M'irthiir delivered judgment in thn case in which W. H. Turnbiill and Co. claimed from Alfred Cole?, of Potono, a Mini of J225 12s. Gd., for work, journeys, ■ind attendances carried out as commission ■asnnl.is in the sale (to S. A. Cope fer j≥5.23) of a section «t Hataitai. There was doubt as to whether Turiibull and Co. had effected s>. binding contract with tho defendant. Cope, and that w.ns Hie point which I'lie. Court was a«ked to decide. Hi? Worship said that, if a contract was to be made, the intention of the offeree to accept must be expressed wiihout leaving room for doubt a= , to the fact of acceptance, or as to the correspondence of I ho term* of the acceptance with those of the oli'or. And. where a correspondence appeared to result at any moment of its course in a definite offer and arcept.-ince, it was necessary to isk whether that ofi'er and acceptance included nil the terms imder discussion. For., where the parlies had come to levins, a subsequent revival of negotiations might amount (o a rccission on one side, and consequent, breach, but did not alter the fact tlint a contract had been made. In his Worship's opinion a binding contract had been nnde in this case by Turiibull and Co. with Cope, and one winch, therefore, could be enforced by the defendant. That bein~ so the agents were entitled to their toinunernlion. fnr. when once (hero wo* n definite acceptance, of tho terms of tho offer further negotiations between the parlies could nnt. without the consent of both, Ket rid of the, contract which had been made. _ . Judgment was Riven for the plaintiffs, Ttu-übiill and Co. ARCHITECT'S BILL. Judgment was delivered by Dr. M'Arthur in .Inines 0 Dca. architect, v. Marl in Kennedy, of Wellington. The claim wns for ,£3l 35.. for work and services rendered. These, it was alleged, had bceii rendered in 1005. exce.pt as lo item (for plans and specifications, in 190G). His Worchifl reviewed the accounts, and thsa

--.i.id lint the deductions ho had mode nonrded Hie amount of the claim. Therefore, judgment w:is given for the defendf<l) t Willi COst>.

JXTKKKST CHAKrii; OX ACCOUNT. 11l W. and <>'. Turnbiill v. 1,, and .1. I'hilp. judgment was given by Mr. \V. '!. l?iddoll. This wa.- a claim for ,1'2!) 13s. .VI., l)L-iiij» Iho nmnnnt of an overdue account duo by Hie defendant, together with .£1 1!)?. 3d.' inU'i-i'-t on Iho hiimi'. at 8 per cent. Defendants lvul |iniil ,C 27 11?., Iho amount'of Hie arcoiint, into Court, bill; they rli.-jiutn] Iho interest oharjp. His "Worship slated In , was net prepared I.:, s'ly I hat (here ra ever an ' implied contract on the part of defendants to pay the intwe.-t claimed, but ho, thought it ha<l brni shown that a demand for interest h;ul been made. He considered fh.ii Die dem.ind w;is Mjflicir-nf to comply with the statute, and judgment was fur plnintilV for M 3s. .Id. ■ OTHER CASES. (Before Mr. W. 0. Riddell. S.M.) Annie Winifred Dunn, on remand for drunkenness, and breach of a prohibition order, was ordered to spend a yenr at l'nk.itna Island. •Je.ssie Tremaiiip was convicted and discharged for drunkenness, and fined '20.-., in defnult seven days' imprisonment for broakinn a prohibition order. Throe first offenders were dealt with. A charge of stealing shrubs worth 10s. was made against William Shannon. The shrubs were said to belons to the City Council. A remand till to-day was Rranted. A lad, also, was charged with a similar offence, and was remanded till to-day. SUPREME COURT. CRIMINAL SESSION'S LIST. The criminal sessions of the. Supreme Court, open on , Monday next. The preI sent list of cases i" as under :—

John Maloney, alleged criminal assault. William Booth, alleged theft from person. Arthur Frederick Charles Davies, alleged theft from dwelling. Alfred Britis, alleged unlawful sale of liquor. George Fcrminger, alleged act of a certain nature. Prank Cootes, alleged robbery. William John M'Lean ami Leonard Brown, alleged breaking and entering and theft (two charges). William Allmami Denning, alleged criminal assault. Roy Lawton, alleged attempted act ,of certain nature. Arthur Vincent Evens, alleged damagiiiff'of glass windows (eight charges). Robert Parratt, alleged assault, and robbery. Charles Dane, alleged unnatural of- . ■ Allen Lee, allejed theft Julius Jorge.nfcn, alleged assault, causing actual bodily harm. Patrick James Murphy, alleged offer to accept n bribe in contravention of the Land Act.