SUPREME COURT.

Evening Star, Issue 2841, 27 March 1872, Page 2

SUPREME COURT.

IN BANCO. This Day. (Before Mr Justice Chapman.) CATOMORE V, MURRAY. Mr Howorth mentioned that the defendant had refused to be examined ou oath before tbe Registrar, and had declined to produce the partnership books. His Honor : 1 direct that he be examined dm voce, and produce all necessary accounts ; if he disobey and refuse to be sworn, it is a contempt. BARTON V, THE “DAILY TIMES ” AND “witness” company. Mr Macassey applied for a rule nisi calling upon the direct >rs to show cause why interrogatories should not be administered to them. The practice at Home in similar cases appeared to be divided. The application was made either in chambers, when a judge’s order was obtained, or by rule nisi; and in the present instance he preferred the latter course. The action was for breach of au alleged agreement ou the part of the defendants to indemnify the plaintiff against the consequence of all acts committed or done by him in the discharge of his duties of editor and literary manager of the Daily Times and papers. The declaration set forth that in July, 1868, it was agreed between the parties that the defendants would ratify, approve, and indemnify all acts done by the plaintiff bona Jidc in the exercise of his discretion or authority as editor ; that whilst he acted as such editor, certain articles of which the defendants approved, criticising the management of the Telegraph Department, appeared in the paper —the consequence being that the plaintiff was subjected to a criminal prosecution at the suit of the General Government; that at the defendants’ request he resisted that prosecution, whereby he incurred losses to the amount of LSOO, which defendants, in violation of the said agreement, refuse to make good, A second count seeks to recover the same expenses in the form of money paid by the plaintiff at the request of the defendants. To the declaration the defendants pleaded a general denial; and upon the pleadings as they stand, the plaintiff desires to interrogate the defendants as to two letters Mr Bathgate, as secretary to the company, addressed to the Hon. D. Bell, then a member of the General Government. The interrogations are addressed to Messrs W. D. Murison, R. G Hies, and W. J. M, Larnach, and ask (1) whether or not thev were directors of the company on April 27 and May 4, 1871 ; and (2) whether or not they instructed Mr Bathgate, as secretary to the company, to write the letter of April 27ihe next interrogation is addressed to Mr Bathgate, and asks whether or not the said letter was written and published by authority or under the instructions of the defendants The next interrogation asked Messrs Murison, Larnach, and Gillies, jointly and severally, whether at any time, either publicly or privately, they stated Mr Bathgate had exceeded his authority ; who was editor when the letters were written ; were the letters written under and by the instructions of Mr Murison ; did the plaintiff ever request that the letters should be written or published, and were they not written and sent without any previous consultation with him ? (The letters were published in the Evenlmj Star of May 1. In his letter Mr Bathgate asks the Government to contribute one-b°alf of the expense of publishing in pamphlet form the proceedings in Regina v. Barton, in order that by the “utmost publicity” being given thereto, the public may be satisfied that “the Government and the depaatment were blameless,” to which Mr Bell replied that no end would be gained by printing the pamphlet ; and hinted that if the directors thought justice would be served theieby, that it would probably strike them that “a retraction of the charges would be au appropriate introduction to the work.”) His Honor : Could not all this be got out at the trial ? Mr Macassey submitted if it could be got out then, the plaintiff was entitled to get it now. The plaintiff alleged that having acted bona fide he was entitled to be indemnified ; then arose the question whether Mr Bathgate was acting within the scope of his authority. It was therefore of the utmost importance to know whether the directors held themselves bound by what Mr Bathgate had done. If they were not, the probability was that there would be no action ; if the other way, it would go a long way to entitle the plaintiff to recover. It was further necessary to administer these interrogatories, because the directors were asked to reply specifically to otheijquestions, which would become unnecessary if they answered the interrogatories. Rule granted. BANK OF NEW ZEALAND V. WAIN AND ANOTHER. This was a motion for injunction and receiver. Mr Macassey appeared for the plaintiffs ; Mr Haggitt for Wain, and Mr Smith for Chaplin. The plaintiffs ask for an oi'der restraining the defendants from dealing with property, the subject-matter of one or two securities. The action is against Wain, Chaplin, and Mr Leary, as trustee in the latter’s estate. In September, 1870, Chaplin sold his coachin" business to Mansfield and Co. for LfSjOOO, payable by bills, to secure payment of which, and, as the plaintiffs allege, to defeat the 145 th section of the Bankruptcy Act, Mansfield by deed gave Chaplin a lease of the business, &c., at a nominal rent, enabling him to resume possession. Chaplin becoming indebted to the Bank of New Zealand, handed to them as security five of Mansfield’s bills endorsed by himself. Wain became trustee, and to secure sums of money lent by him, obtained a transfer of the coaching business by bill of sale. The Bank now prayed that Wain might be restrained from enforcing the bill of sale, and prevented from satisfying his own claims until those of the plaintiffs and other hillholders were satisfied. The substance of Wain’s pleas was, that when he obtained the bill of sale, he was unaware that there were outstanding bills, or that Mansfield’s bills handed over to th • Bank were endorsed by Chaplin. The latter’s pleas bore out this defence. (Left sitting.)