DISTRICT COURT.

Evening Star, Issue 4267, 30 October 1876, Page 2

DISTRICT COURT.

Monday, October 30.

(Before His Honor Judge Bathgate and a Jury of four.)

James Crichton Glassford v. Thomas Cotton Rowley and Others.—Claim L2OO, damages for the withdrawal of the floating of a projected company from the hands of plaintiff. Mr A. Bathgate appeared for plaintiff; Mr Macassey for defendants. The plaint set forth that it waß agreed between plaintiff and defendants that the former should become broker or agent to the defendants in the promoting of the Shag Point Coal Mining Co. at a remuneration of L 350 ; that plaintiff did all things necessary for the pnrpose of establishing the said company ; and that defendants wrongfully and without reasonable pretence refused to permit plaintiff to act as such broker or agent, whereby he was prevented from earning the said sum of L 350. Plaintiff therefore sued defeudantsjor L2OO damages for work done and money paid by him at defendants' request. Defendants pleaded (1) that plaintiff was not employed by them as alleged ; (2) that plain.' l tiff was not ready and willing or able to carry out his part of the alleged agreement ;

(3) that defendant* did not hinder or pre* j Vent the plaintiff from carrying out the I alleged agreement; (4) that the services in j the particulars alleged to have been rendered , were performed in plain*iffs own interest; j (fr) that the services rendered by the plaintiff i were not of the value claimed.

James Crichton Glassford, agent and accountant, said in August of laßtyear Mr Wilson, managing partner of the Shag Point coalmining firm, asked him if he would see what he could do in town towards floating a company to work the concern. Nothing was said about remuneration, but Wilson requested witness to go to town for the purpose of floating or getting-someone to float the company. Witness went to Donedin, and was there engaged in looking after the affair. On reporting the result to Wilson 'the latter-said • he -would report to his partners at tht next half-yearly meeting and fix the amount of remuneration payable to witness. In November it was arranged definitely that witness was to undertake the floating of the company, he receiving 2J per cent, on L 14,000 capital or L 350, as com mission. WuSon subsequently said that his partner Rowley would be able to raise part of the capital at Home. Supposing the company were not to float witness said he would charge nothing' farther than his printing expenses. Witness had to travel about a good deal, and his expenses, including telegrams and printing, amounted to L 34 ss. In January of the present year Wilson had some action pending, ana he told witness to let the proposed company rest for a time. In June witness asked Wilson if, the other affair being settled, he should proceed with the floating of the company. Wilson said they were going to let the matter rest. Witness then sent in a claim, which defendants refused to recognise beyond the amount paid for printing. They also refused to submit witness's claim to arbitration. Witness offered to settle his claim for LSO, but defendants declined to pay that sum. He gave up his position in the National Bank at Palmerston m order to float the company. Will S. Douglas, commission agent, said the remuneration for floating a company was generally a matter of special agreement; otherwise he would charge three guineas a day. George Grant, commission agent, gave similar evidence to that of the last witness, adding that three guineas a day would be the lowest remuneration in case of a proposed company falling through from no fault of the broker or agent. ** Mr Macassey submitted that plaintiff must be nonsuited, contending that one partner had no authority to put an end to a partnership by entering into arrangements having for their object the disposal of the partnership property. His Honor having overruled the nonsuit | points, the following evidence was given for I the defence:—

C. J. Wilßon, manager of the Shag Point mine, said the plaintiff, as the manager of the National Bank at Palmerston, suggested the floating of a company to purchase and work the mine, and in the event of his failing defendants were only to pay tue cost of printing. If successful, he was to get 2£ per cent, on L 14.000, the proposed capital of the company. Defendants were also to have 800 out of the 5,000 shaies of L 5 each. Plaintiff wis to have got Mr George M'Lean, Sir D. Bell, and Mr Larnach to become provisional directors, but he was not successful, though Sir D. Bell afterwards consented, conditionally on the plant being valued, which defendants declined to allow. Plaintiffs services had been of no value whatever.

Wm. Watson, of Martin and Watson, denied that he had ever intimated to the plaintiff or anyone else his willingness to allow his name to appear in the list of directors of the proposed company. He did not think well of the company, or that it was possible to have floated it in Dunedin. The jury returned a verdict for the plaintiff for LSO.