Untitled

Horowhenua Chronicle, 27 July 1910, Page 3

A Supreme Court action of an unusual nature, William 10. L. Hanks v. tlie Cheltenham (Jo-operative Daiiy 'Company, Ltd., was decided yesterday at Wellington l>y his Honor Mr Justice Chapman. Mr A. Herdmaii appeared for the plaintiff Ba>nks and Mi , J. Graham (of Feilding) for thy. defendant company. Banks, a young man, claimed to recover £'2»{) paid by him to the company and >t<> have cancelled a proinLsory note given by him to the company. His sister was married to one Ross, who, while employed as secretary of the company, misappropriated over £")()() of its moneys. In Felniuary, l'JOf). this master was made known to Ha.nks. who arranged with Mr .Saudila lids, the company's solicitor, to pay £2")0 cash to the company and »ivc a promissory note for the remaining €2")(), in order to prevent a prosecution of Ross. An insurance company was liable oin a fidelity bond lor £ir>'() fur Ross' defalcation, and the dairy company agreed no* to inform the insurance company of tihe misappropriations. A prosecution diet "follow, however, and Ross was sentenced to two years' imprisonment. Hanks had not had the money returned to him. It was pointed out throb Mr Saudi-Lands had declined, to enter into a contract that there .should he no pnosecution. His HoiKMiT, in delivering judgment, remarked -that the prosecution of Ros;s was instituted by a .sh-antiholder, acting independently of the company. The trial had been heard at I'almerston Xorth, and the jury held that there had been an agreement not to prosecute. Deciding in Banks' favour on both branches of the case, with costs, his Honor remarked: "It is n'oilii't thai I should mention that a meeting of the company has since pissed a resolution deciding to return the money, but I suppose this was opposed, and it was not carried into effect. It has no bearing upon my decision, but it frees tine company from all imputation of dishonestly retaining the plaintiff's monev."