COURT NEWS

Grey River Argus, 20 September 1937, Page 6

COURT NEWS

£lO,OOO MAORI ESTATE CASE. [Per Press Association], WELLINGTON, September 17. The Court of Appeal is hearing a case involving a claim to an estate consisting of native lands, valued at approximately £lO,OOO. Proceedings were taken in the Supreme Court last year, on behalf of the next-of-kin (nephews and nieces) of Teo Tipene, deceased, for a declaratory judgment as to the status of the appellant, Robert Victor Tipene (otherwise known as Le Sueur) of Wellington, labourer, who claims to be the adopted son of deceased. When Teo Tipene died, he left no natural children surviving. If appellant is in law his adopted son, he would be entitled to succeed to the whole of deceased’s estate. Mr Justice Reed, before whom the case was heard, made declarations (a) that <n order of adoption of appellant by Teo Tipene and Meri Tipene, purporting to have been made orally by a Magistrate at Wellington in 1900, was invalid as an adoption order, under the Adoption of Children’s Act, 1895; and (b) that in law, Teo Tipene and Meri Tipene were not on any relevant date husband and wife within the meaning of that Act. Appellant is appealing against these declarations, on the ground that they are erroneous in law and fact. Respondent in the case is Tutua Teone of Wiawhetu, an aboriginal native. COLLISION CASE APPEAL. WELLINGTON, September 17. Albert J. G. Kempton, who was sentenced to three months’ imprisonment by Mr Justice Callan yesterday on a Charge of failing to stop after a collision of a lorry with a passenger bus in the Wairarapa, to-day applied for leave to appeal. EMPLOYMENT FRAUD. WELLINGTON, September 17. Fines totalling £2O, with costs, for what were stated to be particularly deliberate attempts to mislead employment officers, were imposed by Mr Stilwell, S.M., on Lewis Joseph Murphy, a clerk, who pleaded guilty 7 to two charges of making false statements. Defendant had been employed casually as a night attendant at the Wellington Hospital, but when first asked for an explanation, he denied ever having worked there. He admitted the offences when shown his signature to the amounts paid to him for his work there. CLAIM AGAINST DIRECTORS. ORDER FOR THEM TO REPAY COMPANY. INVERCARGILL, September 16. The reserved judgment of Mr Justice Kennedy in the case in which George Maddams, of Rangiora, sought an order against the directors of Millers (Invercargill) Ltd., setting aside a transfer of shares, and an order for the refund of directors’ fees, was read in the Supreme Court to-day. The defendants were James Thomas Sharp and Alice Sharp, of Invercargill; and Walter Gurwood Winnicott, Thomas Loftus Jones, Charles Laidlaw Purdie, William Alfred Thomas, and William Josiah Love, of Christchurch. Plaintiff, a shareholder in Millers (Invercargill) Ltd., claimed a declaration that a resolution of the directors of that company purporting to approve certain transfers pf shares, a resolution of the company to increase the number of directors and appointing two, a resolution of the company recommending leave of absence —and of the company granting such leave —to the manager, and voting the directors remuneration, and the subsequent directors’ resolution allocating that remuneration, were each and all of them invalid. Plaintiff also claimed an order setting aside the registration of transfers and restraining 'the defendants, the directors of the company, from proceeding upon the resolutions, and an order for a refund of directors’ fees paid. His Honour said: “I am forced to the conclusion that the voting and taking of directors’ fees to the amount complained of, in substance amounts to appropriation of the company’s funds and abuse of the undoubted majority 7 of their rights, and that the action is, within the meaning of cases, of a fraudulent character. The alteration of the articles to deprive shareholders of their rights and to give a differentia] dividend on the shares held by the defendant, James Thomas Sharp, would obviously be oppressive. James Thomas Sharp may not accomplish the same object in the guise of a vote of directors’ fees to himself. The order that is made will not prevent the company voting a fresh remuneration to the directors provided that the majority do not abuse their powers and deprive the minority of their rights. “In the result, therefore, it follows that there must be an order that the defendant, James Thomas Sharp, repay to the company the sum of £560. The defendant, Alice Sharp, will repay the sum of £2O. The defendant, James Thomas Sharp, will pay' to the plaintiff costs according to scale as on a claim for £6OO, together with witnesses’ expenses and disbursements.”