LAW REPORTS.

Dominion, Volume 7, Issue 2013, 21 March 1914, Page 14

LAW REPORTS.

' SUPREME COURT. THE NUTRICIA MILK COMPANY. IN LIQUIDATION. PETITION TO WIND UP DISMISSED. 'A'i petition 'fo wind up tho Nutricia Milk Company, Ltd. (in liquidation), under thp provisions of tho Companies Act, 190 d, was heard in the Supremo Court yesterday afternoon before His Honour the Chief Justico (Sir Robert Stout). The petitioner wao Henry Albert Ward, secretary, of Lower Hutt, representing certain creditors. From what was set out in the petition it appeared. that the Nutricia Milk •■Company, Ltd., whoso registered offico was at Dixon Street, was-on September 21, 1911, incorporated as a private company. The capital of the company was £2230, divided into 2230 shares'of £1 each, and the, objects of tho company were to carry on business as wholesale or retail dairymen, etc. ' The Nutricia Company was indebted to the Wellington Co-operative Dairy Farmers' Association in the sum of £708 for milk and other commodities:, and 'had failed to pay this debt or any part of it. Petitioner alleged. that, by a debenture dated May 20,, 1013, the Nutricia Company had charged its undertakings and all its property real and personal with the payment of a sum of £3000, with in-. terest at the rate of 7 per cent., and .this debenture was held by tho Fresh Food and Ice Company of Wellington, Ltd. On October 15, 1913, Nutricia Co. passed a resolution to go into voluntary liquidation. Mr. J. B. Brandon being appointed liquidator. Since October 15, 1913, the Fresh Food and Ice Company of Wellington, Ltd., had gone into liquidation, and Messrs. J. B. Brandon and Alexander Simpson had been appointed liquidators.' Petitioner (Ward) said that, by reason of these circumstances, it was not desirable that tho two companies should be wound up by the same liquidator. He therefore prayed that the Nutricia Company should be wound up by the Court, or, in the alternative, that the company if wound up voluntarily, should bo wound -up under supervision.Mr. R. B. Williams appeared in support of the petition, which was opposed by Mr. C. B. Morison, K.C., on behalf of the Fresh Food and Ice Company (a creditor), and. by Mr. W. L. Kothenberg, on behalf of the liquidator. ~ Mr. Williams, after his address, called the petitioner to give evidence.

His Honour, after hearing from the petitioner that he (petitioner) was not iiiiuacii — T. editor, had not mado his petition name of a creditor, and was not acting under power of attorney, held that he had no standing in the matter, and that the petition must therefore bo dismissed. Mr. Rotbenberg applied for costs, and His Honour made an order that costs should be fixed by tho Registrar. . MANDAMUS SOUGHT. ON IKAROA MAORI LAND BOARD. .An application for a writ of mandamus, to compel a Maori Laud Board to confirm a transfer of land, was heard in the Supreme Court yesterday morning before His Honour tho Chief Justice (Sir Robert Stout). The plaintiff was Millicent Howell, wife of William James Howell, farmer, of Paraparaumu, and the defendant was the ikaroa Maori Land Board.

Mr. E. I''. Hadrield appeared for Mrs. Howell, and Mr. M. M. F. Luckie for tho Ikaroa Maori Laud Board.

According to the statement of claim, it appeared that agreement dated July 27, 1912, Mrs. Howell had agieed with ono Teira JJgarara (also known as Teira Ihakara) she should purchase the land at Paraparaumu hrown as Ngarara West B, Sections 3a and 2b. As part payment of the purchase-money, Mrs. Howell agreed to purchase from ono Harry Wade'a piece of land (5 acres 3 roods 17 perches), and transfer it to Teira Ngarara. Mrs. Howell duly purchased this last-mentioned piece of land, and is now the registered owner thereof. Subsequently (on November 23, 1912) Teira Ngarara executed in favour of Mrs. Howell a memorandum of transfer of .the first-named land (Ngarara West B, Sections 3a and 2b), and on December 11, 1912, tho Ikaroa Maori Land Board confirmed the sale and purchase, subject to the production of receipts for purchase money and tho transfer of. - Wado's land (5 acres 3. roods 17 . perches).. Teira Ngarara was not present on that occasion and, at a later date, he asked for a rehearing of .the application for confirmation of tho memorandum of transfer. Mrs. Howell lodged an objection _to tho rehearing and notified her willingness to complete the transaction as pre--viously approved by the board. The application was, however, reheard and on Juno 19, 1913, the Ikaroa Maori Land Board refused the confirmation upon j the ground that it was not in tho interests of Teira Ngarara to part with his land under the proposed terms. Mrs. Howell now. said that, in refusing to confirm tho memorandum of transfer, the Ikaroa Maori Land Board was exceeding its powers, and that the grounds on which the Board based its refusal were not good or tenable, and that the board's decision was erroneous in lav,-. . Further (Mrs. Howell said) tho refusal was wrongful, and ss she was sufEerng from that refusal she asked that a writ of mandamus be issued directing the Ikaroa Maori Laud Board to confirm the sale and purchase and tho memorandum of transfer from Teira Ngarara to Mrs. Howell; Vl ln making this application. Mi's. Howell said that tho agreement for the transfer of tho land had been entered into at tho request of and at the desiro of Teira Ngarara. . In the statement of defence, the original agreement was admitted and tho Ikaroa Maori Land Board also admitted that the transfer was duly executed by Teira Naarara in favour of Mrs. Howell. The board said, however, that the snlo and nurchaso did not comply with faction 220 of the Native Land Act, 1909, inasmuch as tho alienation thereby intended to bo effected was. in tho opinion of the board, contrary fo tho interest of Teira Ngarara, nud, moreover Teira Ngarara was unwillinrt to complete the transaction. Tho board general;/ denied.that its refusal to confirm thp transfer was wronnr. As a further the Ikaroa Maori Land Board said it had no oower to make the minute of tho confirmation of December 11, 1912, and that that minute of confirmation was ultra vires and void, and further tho board had no power now to confirm tho transfer without tho consent of Teira Naarafa. The memorandum of transfer did not comply with tho conditions imposed by faction 220 of the Native Land Act.' 19(19. inasmuch as the consideration for the intended alienation was not adequate. After heai-mcc argument, His Honour reserved decision.