LAW REPORTS.

Dominion, Volume 5, Issue 1517, 13 August 1912, Page 2

LAW REPORTS.

SUPREME COURT. CIVIL SESSIONS COMMENCE. Tho civil sessions of the Supreme Court commenced yesterday beforo Mr. Justicc Edwards. No jury case was ready, and after the jurors in attendance had been sworn, they wero discharged until this morning. A case which had been set down for hearing before a Judgo alone was guickly disposed of. The parties were Edward James Leslie Payne, clerk, of Wellington (suing by his guardian, ad litem, B. C. Warnes, journalist, of Lower Hutt). plaintiff, and "William Henry Payne, bootmaker, of Auckland. Mr T. M. Page, of Eketahuna, appeared for plaintiff, and Mr. W. H. D. Bell was for defendant. It appeared that tho defendant (Win. Henry Payne) was the executor of tho will of the late Edward Payne, labourer, of Wellington. The latter died on March 21, 1898, and bequeathed his real and personal estate to Win. Henry Payne upon a trust. Sinco probate of tho will was granted, it is alleged that tho defendant (Wm. Henry Payne) has failed to render any accounts to. those interested in the trust. For these reasons the plaintiff (Edward James Leslie Payne), who is one of the beneficiaries, prayed:— 1. That an acco'unt be taken of tho assets token possession of by the defendant and of his administration of . the estate and that ho (the defendant) be ordered to pay into Court such sum as may bo found to bo due and owing by him to the estate. 2. That. tlio defendant bo removed from the office of trustee and some proper .person appointed in liis.stead. When the case was called, Mr. Bell intimated that lio would agree to the order asked for. Mr. Page suggested that tho Public Trustee should ■ be appointed to administer the estate. Ho believed that tlri Pnblic Trustee could not refuse if appointed. Mr. Justice Edwards: Well, can you show me any authority for that? . Mr. Page said he believed that authority was given in the Public Trust Office Act. . Mr. Justice Edwards: Well, cnniyou re"fer me to the section, Mr. Page? I don't know,the Public Trust Office Act off by heart and apparently you don't cither, ' After reference to the Act it was fqund that the consent of the Public Trustee was necessary. His Honour then made the 'order subject to this consent being filed. Tho question of costs was reserved to enable the parties to como to some arrangement;. ' INJUNCTION DISSOLVED, SHAREHOLDER WHO COULD NOT ' VOTE. A motion to rescind an interim injunction was heard in the Supreme Court beforo Mr. Justice Chapman yesterday afternoon. Tho plaintiff fn the original action was Hugh Crabb, settler, of Feilding, and the defendants were Robert M'Mnrruy, sen., settler, of Wauganui; Robert M'Mnrray, jun., settler, • oi' Palmerston North; and Sarah Ann.M'Murray, married woman, of Wahganui.Mr. H. D. Bell, K.C., with him Mr. A. de B. Brandon, jun., appeared for the plaintiff, while Mr. P. J. O'Regati appeared in support of the defendants' motion. 6 It appeared that M'Murray, and Co; was a private company, carrying on busi-. ness in Palmerston North. • Somo time ago the business was sold" to the West Coast Steamship and Trading Co., Ltd., the. members of tho company receiving as consideration 3500.paid-up shares in the new concern. At a meeting of shareholders of the West Coast Company, held at Palmerston North ..on February.. 2{), 1911, a dispute arose between the'M'Mnrrays and the chairman' of tho meeting (Mr. D. Buick, M.P.)t the chairman, holding that the'M'Murrays had no right, to demand a poll, on the election of directors. The M'Murrays thereupon took legal advice, and were informed that tlie poll had been wrongly refused. Subsequently the matter was referred to tlio arbitrament of Mr. C. B. Morison. The latter gave liis decision on December 18, 1911, to the effect that a poll ■ had been wrongfully' refused, and that a fresh election should be held. In accordance with Mr. Morison's finding, a meeting for the fresh election was held on January 2i, 1912, and adjourned until January 31. On Tuesday,vJanuary 30, Hugh Crabb, one of the shareholders in tlio firm of M'Murray and Co., applied for an interim injunctiop to restrain the M'Murrays from voting in respect of the 3500 paid-up shares, inasmuch as the firm of M'Murray and Co. Was in liquidation. An order as requested was granted by Mr. Justice Chapman, and served on tho M'Murrays at tho meeting on,. January. 31, and thus they were precluded from voting in 'respect of tho paid-up shares. Subsequently the.shares were sold by tender at the instance of the liquidator, and Sir. M'Murray, sen., became the purchaser. At a further meeting of shareholders on March 23, tho injunction was again used to restrain him from voting, and used also against the liquidator of M'Murray and.Co. The defendants now sought to have the injunction dissolved, and an inquiry ordered as to damages, on the ground that the injunction had been obtained ex parte, the facts not having been fairly placed before the Court. Tho motion came before Mr. Justice Cooper at Palmerston North, on July 3, but was, remitted to Wellington to be dealt with by Mr. Justice Chapman, who granted the interim injunction. His Honour, after hearing argument' of counsel yesterday afternoon, said that the only matter before the Court was the motion to dissolve the and as it was not opposed by plaintiff, it would bo dissolved. His Honour held that the use of the injunction at the second meeting was irregular, but was not contemplated, and had been used inadvertently by plaintiff, and its use could not bo a ground of. complaint against him. As M'Murray and Co. was in liquidation on the first occasion, it would have, been inequitable had the shares been voted upon, and the interim injunction was rightly granted as' far as tho first mefcting was concerned. Between that meeting and tho 'second one, tho M'Murrays had ample time to,ask tho Court to dissolve tho injunction, but neglected to do so. No costs' would be allowed either side on the motion.