REEFTON.

Grey River Argus, Volume XII, Issue 1081, 15 January 1872, Page 2

REEFTON.

(Before Mr Warden Giles.) *• 'Win. M'Lean v. A. M'Cloy.— Mr Pitt for the defendant. This was an action to recover the sum of L6B for work done. Mr Pitt raised an objection to the plaint only containing the name of M'Lean, when the Jaw provided that the names of all the shareholders should appear. Subsequently, it was arranged to hear the case. Wm. M'Lean said: An arrangement was made on 37th July, 1871, between Rhody Ryan and party and me to supply machinery for their claim, M'Cloy being one of the company, and verbally agreeing to the conditions of agreement. He, consented to sign the agreement, but did not do bo. John Power said he was a partner in Rhody Ryan's claim, and recollected a meeting of shareholders of the company on 17th July, 1871. He recollected signing an agreement purporting to supply machinery (agreement put in.) He recollected a second agreement being drawn up and signed at; another meeting, at Nelson's store, Murray Creek, which also provided for the furnishing of machinery. M'Cloy did not sign it, but did not object to the conditions. ; - He was appointed- to go to the Grey to get a legal opinion on its validity, and did so. After obtaining Mr Guinness's opinion on the agreement, he desired M'Cloy to sigh. He refused, and has not worked in the claim since. Mr Pitt examined this witness at 'considerable length relative to the agreements, and elucidated from him that the agreement between Kelly and party was abandoned. A written ; protest from M'Cloy to R. Ryan and Co., October 27, against the ratification of any contract was put in. Rhody Ryan called, said he was a shareholder in the claim known as M'Oloy's. He recollected a meeting being held on July 17, at which an agreement was entered into between Kelly and Co., Rhody Ryan and Co. and Mr M'Lean for the supply of machinery. He recollected M'Cloy agreeing verbally to the conditions of an agreement. . His Worship said — I cannot see that there is. any case against M'Cloy, as he never signed any agreement. If there are six men in a claim, and five choso to enter into a contract, it does riot follow that the sixth man is bound by any such contract. A. M'Cloy, examined by M'Lean, said— l recollect the meetings at which the agreements were made. I did not sign any. I have since sold out my interest through the action taken by M'Lean at a loss. The plaintiff was nonsuited with costs, three guineas. Drury v. Keunedy, Corney, and Armstrong and others. — Action to recover a share. In this case, to save time; it was decided between counsel for defence and Mr Drury to accept the received evidence taken on a previous occasion. Mr Pitt took exception to the summons containing the name of one of the parties to! the defence, Jas. Mooney he being dead, and that the agreement made between the parties was bad in point of law. Ultimately, the case was proceeded with. Mr Pitt opened the case for the defence in a lengthened address, during which he made numerous reference to law authorities, endeavoring to show that plaintiff had no case. Mr Drury retaliated by a copious application to counter authorities. Plaintiff was nonsuited without costs. The remaining cases were unimportant.