SUPREME COURT

Dominion, Volume 9, Issue 2781, 27 May 1916, Page 3

SUPREME COURT

CLAIM AGAINST A BREWERY Further evidence was led yesterday in the e-ase Sciruh Bootes v. Staples and Co., Ltd., in which plaintiff olaimed i.'501 for alleged nuisance. Chas. AV. Tringham, solicitor, said lie had acted for Sirs. Stevenson. W'heii tho work of building was .proceeding, Mrs. .Stevenson instructed liirn Jiot to allow . the plasterers to eomo on to her property to finish the wall beuig built for Staples and Co. He found that Mrs. Bootes had given permission to the contractor, and ■ Mrs.. Stevoifsoir ■ then instructed him to give Mrs. Bootes one month's notice to quit. This was done, but Mrs. Bootes was still occupying the property. Mrs. Sarah' Juno Orenory, ivlwso hi:sbarid is somewhere in France, lived near to the brewery on Mrs. Stevenson's property. She had a notion that the brewery was worked by an ensino, but never heard it. It was against .her principles to drink beer, but she had no objection to the smell of hops, which came from the brewery. Sho never experienced a disagreeable smell. William. I'uilery, son of the previous witness, said ho never heard tho ongine of the brewery working. He smelt the uinlt, of course, but' that was not hurtful; he hail lived iir n brewery for six months at lnvercargill. . Air. Seagar, the engineer to the defendants, recalled, said tliuy hn«l fiwde « large copper boiler, and while that was on there was considerable noise. It continued for six weeks, but, being finished, was non-recurring. Dr. Hardwick Smith was called as ito the illness of Mrs. Bootes. He said she was not a robust woman. . He had attended her previously, but her lasf illness she attributed to gas, but as ;to"that lie could not say. In all rospocts, it was a similar trouble, as Mrs. Bootes was a delicate woman, and a smell might affect her. i His' Honour said he would take occasion to visit the premises 011 Saturday, and would reservo judgment. A TRANSACTION IN SHAKES. A- transaction in shares occupied tho attention of His Honour Mr. Justice Hoskiug yesterday. 'J,'lie caso was heard In the Magistrate's Couit on August 31, 1915, when counsel for defendants raised a nonsuit point which the Magistrate garded as valid. Tho plaintiff, Albert Sanderson Collins, clerk, of Wellington, appealed, anil His Honour the Chief J ustico ordered the. case to be reheard. Mr. A. W. Blair appeared for the plaintiff.' Collins, and Mr. T. Young, and .with him Mr. Kennedy, for tho defendants, mai'tyn Hume, sharebroker, Wellington, nnd Bosmore C. Wilson, shecpfamier, Cheviot.' Mr. Blair stated that Collins agreed to purchase, and did purchase, 601) slinrea (preference) in ' tho Westport-Stockton. C'oal Co., Ltd., 10s. paid, at 3s. per share, but ho subsequently found that the shares transferred to him were not preference but ordinary shatcs. The preference shares were valued at 95., and tho claim was for .£IBO, the difference between the market value of prefcrenco and of ordinary shares. In the courso of Mr. Blair's statement of tho case, he said that his . client paid money for preference shares, and expected to. get preference shares. Even if a broker received instructionslrom his principal to sell ordinary shares, and sold preference shares, the principal was bound by the error of his agent. His Honour:. I nevor heard of such a thing. If I • instruct an agent to sell dink .of Jioiv Zealand Hllaron, nnd he sells National Bank shares, am I bound by that-agent's, error? Mr..Blair: That would depend. ■ J. Martyn Hume,' sharebroker, Wellington, said he received instructions in ivntllijf fmn Hi Hurley. secretary (o the Westport-Stockton ' Coal Co., Ltd., to sell GOO shares—preference—in tho company. He asked Stewart (Hornibroolt's clerk) to Bud u .buyer for- POO shares in tho company. He did not recollcct whether lie said preferenco sliares or not. Stewart sold ordinary shares, and a doubt being raised lis to whether the shares were ordinary or preference shares, Stewart had said Collins would take the eharvVno oordiug to Hornibrook's contract note, which. .did not .say either ordinary or preferenco';'. pharfcs—'oftly'..'. .*'600.. ehareS/'. Tho,.trouble aroso aftet the transfer.; Itwas'then that Collihs assumed, his present attitude. * •

Albert S. Collins, shipping clerk, Wellington,, said, that on' 'receiving tho trims, fer-from- Stewart- in- Hornibrook's office lie specially asked if the"'shares'"were prefqronce, and he was assured that they were. ■■ He 'Accordingly' paid lor the shares at 3s. per share. \Vhcn he found out they wore not preference shares' he instructed his brother to hold tho eontract note; and he did not know then that he (his brother) 'held Humo's contract note that they were preference shares.

To Mr. Young: He knew the shares he had bought had risen to ss. Sd„ and that ho sold at a profit.; Mr. Young failed to see where a canso of action lay. There was the contract note. It iv«s not for preference sliares. His Honour pointed out that plaintiff relied upon Hume's contract noto and the circumstances of tho • purchase. Hewover, lie would noto the point. Mr. Young said he was untitled to a nonsuit. If there had been a mistake, then tho plaintiff could apply for an annulment of the transaction. No fraud had been alleged ■nor Warranty. •' Mr. Kennedy applied for a nonsuit, because there was no evidence that "Wilson .instructed Humo or even Harley. His Honour saw .110 evidenco connecting Wilson with the action, and granted a nonsuit as against him. His Honour reserved judgment as against tho other party.