LAW REPORTS.

Dominion, Volume 5, Issue 1375, 28 February 1912, Page 3

LAW REPORTS.

SUPREME COURT.

T. K. MACDONALD & A CLERK,

WHOPE TVEBE THE SHARES? A summons issued by the liquidator of the Marlborough Brewery Company 1o havo one David Brand added to the list of contributors to the. company in liquidation, was heard by Mr. Justice Sim, in the 'Supreme Court yestcrduy. It appeared from the proceedings that Brand had signed an application for 1720 shares, but he now alleged that ho had acted only as agont in the transaction. A summons was issued to T. Kennedy Macdonald, and to A. li, "Wilson in respect of tho same parcel of shares. Mr. A. E. Meek appeared for tho liquidator (Mr. A. Simpson), Mr. C. B. Morison for Brand, and Mr. K Kirkcaldie for 'Wilson. Defendant Macdonald was not represented by council, but he was present in the Court during the procedings. David Brand said that he had been for several years a clerk in the employment of Macdonald and 'Wilson. He had signed an application to havo the shares issued to him in August, 1909, but ho did so at Maedonald's request. Witness was then only a junior clerk, receiving a small salary, and he could not have purchased 1720 shares. Payment for the shares was made by a cheque of tho firm of Mncdonald, Wilson and .Company, Ho could not remember having received personally any communications from the company concerning the shares. Mr. Kirkcaldie submitted that tho real principal in the transaction was Macdonald, and that Wilson was not a party to it. . His Honour expressed some doubt as to whether, legally,-the company might not be entitled to consider that there were two parcels of shares of 1720 each. Whatever the' company understood, the legal effect of tho arrangement might be that one lot of 1720 shares went to Brand and the other" to Macdonald. His Honour had- to adjourn the case, owing to his having a prior appointment, and further hearing was fixed For Friday morning.

WAS THERE FRAUD? SILVERSTREAM LAND CASE. The hearing of the case arising out. of an allegation of fraud by members of a syndicate against another member of the syndicate was continued in the Supreme Court before Jlr. Justice. Sim yesterday. The parties were Frederick Henry Pitcher (builder), Mary Ann Pitcher, Minette Wardrap, Anderson, and A. Gray (barrister and solicitor), plaintiffs, and "William Charles 'Alfred Dimnck (baconcurcr), Alexander John M'Tavish, and William Edwin "Redstone- (carrying on business as land agents, under the style of A. J. M'Tavish and Co.), defendants. Air. C. B. Morison appeared for the plaintiffs, and Sir John Findlay, K.C. (with him. Mr. F. E. "Ward), for defendants. .''.■'" Plaintiffs alleged, in effect that Redstone had been instrumental in forming the syndicate to purchase a block of land at Silverstreani, but that ho had concealed from the other members of it the fact that he was personally interested in the land asn .vendor. Tho plaintiffs, therefore, sought to have,:—

This' partnership agreement rescinded; An account taken of the partnership transactions'; A receiver appointed by the Court to ' wind up the affairs of tho partnership; ■ . The defendants severally and jointly to indemnify plaintiffs against all claims .with respect'to the- partnership; All sums contributed by the plaintiffs to fhe partnership refunded, with 6 per cent interest added—plaintiffs to give credit for all sums received from the partnership—or, . alternatively, plnintiffs to recover £300 each endamages for loss claimed to have been sustained by them in respect of the "allseed deceit and misrepresentations of the defendants;.. Defendants restrained from dealing with the assets of the partnership. The whole dav was occupied in the hearin" of evidence, and of Sir John Findlay s opening for the defence. The case will be resumed this morning.