Feilding S.M. Court.

Feilding Star, Volume XVI, Issue 227, 26 March 1895, Page 2

Feilding S.M. Court.

THIS DAY. I

(Before Mr Stanford, 5.M.,) Barraud and Abraham v. J. McMillan ; claim £15 Is. Mr Sandilands for plaintiff. Adjourned to the sth of April, the summons having been served on a Sunday, which was illegal and could not be considered a service. J. C. Finlay v. G. Robinson ; claim £B. Mr Iteade for plaintiff. Judgment by default with costs ss. Jas. Purkiss charged Elizabeth Cowdry with having cut down a stab fence on property leased by complainant. Mr Prior appeared for plaintiff and Mr Sandilands for defendant, who pleaded " not guilty." Plaintiff gave evidence of the fence having been destroyed by Mrs Cowdry, and by her direction. Mr Sandilands raised the objection that plaintiff could not claim for damages as his lease was irregularly stamped and he had no title. Mr Prior contended that, although Mrs Cowdry had purchased the property from Schmidt, from whom Purkiss leased the property, a caveat had been lodged against the completion of the transfer until certain conditions had been carried out, and defendant had committed an offence by destroying the fence as she had no legal right to the property. Mr Sandilands contended that plaintiff should prove that he had an interest in the property before he could claim damages. His Worship dismissed the case on the grounds that he had no jurisdiction in the case, the Act proving that " nothing shall be an offence under any provision contained in this part unless it is done without legal jurisdiction or excuse, and without colour of right." J. B. Ross charged Alfred Usmar that he did, on February 23rd, use abusive language calculated to create a breach of the peace. Mr Ross appeared for himself and \Mr Reade for defendant. j Complainant gave evidence of defendant going to him and threatening to j give him (Ross) a thrashing. In crossl examination plaintiff said the case arose > out of witness telling men working for Bathe, for whom defendant was also working, that he would like to see MiBathe's title before they went on with the work, whereupon Usmar went to Ross and threatened him. Thomas Sinclair corroborated complainant's evidence with reference to the alleged assault. I The defence was that no abusive I language had been used. O. Purcell deposed : Usmar was his foreman ; was working on Bathe's property when Ross told him to stop ; then went and told Usmar, who went to see Ross ; did not see defcudant raise his clenched fi.sfc to Ross or hear him use abusive language. ! To the Bench : Heard Usmar say that if Ross would come over the other side of the road he would screw his head off. F. Drogomullea gave evidence similar to previous witness. Defendant depo* el that he told Ross that if he went over on that section again to stop his (witness) men he would screw his (plaintiff's) head off ; he denied threatening Ross in other ways. His "Worship said that as the evidence was contradictory he would dismiss the case. H. Hammond was charged on the information of Mary Smith that there were reasonable grounds for the belief that ho was about to leavo the district, aud complainant asked that he should be required to find security for the maintenance of an illegitimate child (unborn), alleged to be his. Mr Sandilands appeared for plaintiff, and Mr Prior for defendant. The case was dismissed, the Bench considering there Avas not sufficient evidence to show that defendant intended to leave the district. Lougburn Freezing Company v. D. Johnston ; claim, M 15s. Mr Skerrett and Mr J. H. Hankins appeared for the Company, and Mr Sandilands for the defendant. A. Macpherson, in reply to Mr Skerrett, deposed : Was secretary of the Longburn Freezing Co. ; Dr Johnston's name appeared on the share-list as the holder of five shares; produced Dr Johnston's application ; allotted shares to Dr Johnston on 2nd November, 1893 ; 5s per share was payable as allotment by defendant ; three calls had been made, the first on November 3rd of 10s per share ; the allotment fees and calls remain unpaid ; the first call was sued for. Cross-examined : The shares allotted were the second issue ; Messrs Elkington and A. Johnston canvassed the Feilding district for these shares ; the object of making this issue of shares was to put the company in a better financial position ; had received notice to produce Gertain letters received from the National Mortgage Co. of New Zealand ; the Mortgage Company has asked his Company to find better security ; the mortgage on the Company's property was £8000, and the interest due was about .£2OO at that time ; it was to enable the Company to carry on that these shares had been issued. Mr Skerrett admitted that it was at the suggestion of the Mortgage Company that this issue of shares had been made. To Mr Sandilands : The uncalled capital of the Company was, in May, 1898, subject to a mortgage ; of the additional shares issued the uncalled capital was not mortgaged ; prospectuses pf the new issues had been circulated, stating }t was to enable fat stpek to be purchased ; the Company purchased fat stock about February, 1894 ; the prospectus said the business had been satisfactory and, according to the Home price, the purchases had been satisfactory ; during the season precedingthat on which the second prospectus had been issued the Company had made losses on shipments of meat ; couldn't, at the time the prospectuses had been issued, say they had made losses on all shipmenis as they had not then been disposed of ; it was known to the Directors that there had been serious losses over some of the shipments ; on February 15th, 1893, the second prospectus was issued ; it was to carry on the business, including the purchase of fat stock that these shares had been issued ; paid about £15,000 for meat, wool and tallow that &e&son j in February 1893 closed for other than what they made arrangements to freeze ; roughly about 15,000 sheep were purchased by the Company between January 29fch, 1804, to i the end of June 1894, the canvassers were given a copy of the chairman's address and specially instructed that unless 1000 shares were placed no shares would be allotted, also the money deposited on application Jwould be placed to a trust' account and returned, unless 1000 shares were applied for ; had madp no attempt to find out what' the alleged njisrepresentatipn complained of by Dr Johnston was; the balance-sheet produced was the one issued shortly aftey fche new shares had been applied for. Mr SJancfilands gajd the defence was, that the canvassers of the Company mis? represented the condition of the com.pany. Re also submitted that the pros* pootus was also misleading as it spoke in glowing terms of the oompany, while it was in reality in a very bad condition. The canvassers induced shares to be taken up on the understanding that 3QOQ «l}ares would be allotted and that the money was required for tho purchase of fat stock. His client objected to pay owing to the misrepresentation. (Balance of evidence will appear in to-mor-rows issue). In the case Longburn Freezing Com-

given for plaintiff Company with costs 25s and solicitor's fee 21s. In the case the same Company v. J. A. Cowie, a similar case, judgment was entered by consent. (Left sitting).