THE APPEAL COURT

Hokitika Guardian, 18 March 1925, Page 1

THE APPEAL COURT

THE SIEVAVJUGHT CASE. BY TELEGRAI.il —PRESS ASSN., COPYRIGHT WELLINGTON, March 17. At the Appeal Court, the Sicvwright ease was continued. Air Myers, for the appellant, the AYellington Bowling In. Company, continued his argument on the question of ultra vires as to the company's articles. He said Mr Justice Ostler’s decision had placed the company in a very great difficulty, as the ('ltd) did not know where it stood in respect of one of its members. He submitted that respondent had been guilty of most improper conduct, and the governing body must have the right of control. The rules gave power to expel. Air Blair, on behalf ol the respondent, Xievwright, stated the position was Gilhoriiaii as far as the Club in the Lower Court had asserted Rule 23 was ultra vires because the Company "'as a nontrading one. He now was embarrassed because the Lower Court adopted his argument. It was a fundamental principle of company law that a share could not he forfeited unless the holder failed to pay calls. The Company held itself out ns having certain shares, and respondent- could not object to being regarded as a sluueliolder if an action were taken hy his creditors. If respondent were not a shareholder, the members of the Board were not directors, and the Board which sat was not callable of so doing, and counsel for the Company had no right to act for someone not only to voice an opinion.

Mr Blair stressed the point that, as the Company had held a person as a shareholder for seventeen years, this was sufficient to enable that person to resist a claim that lie was not a shareholder. Counsel contended that the notice given respondent hy the Board was the shortest possible notice, and that the Board virtually lia.d arrived at its expulsion decision and concluded the case against respondent helore advising him of the charges. Counsel quoted numerous authorities showing delects in the Board’s procedure fatal to the forfeiture of shares, and also or. the question of estoppel in regard to ‘he assertion that respondent was not legally a member of the Company. The Court reserved its decision. QUESTION OF EXTORTION. ME LUNG TON. March 17. Tin- Court of Appeal (Chief Justice and Justices Reed, Sim, Adams and Ostler) heal'd argument on an appeal from Auckland on the form of a ease staled by Mr Justice Herd man, under a provision of Section 1-12 ol the Crimes Act. 191)8. The point involved is a novel one.

In April. 192-1, one Romald Nilz, a gum-digger, "'on 11 tea .set at a bazaar hold at Alangawai as the prize for guessing the length ot' a piece.- of .sti inp7 A man named Joe Blaz.ina guessed the same length and the parties drew for it. Nitz won but the decision did not please the loser or his wile. Lena Manilla. both of whom alleged that the winner and the Committee had cheated. The wife, however, went further and wrote two acrimonious letters threatening to accuse Nitz of the crime of having unlawful carnal knowledge with a female under the age of sixteen, unless he handed hack the tea set to the Alangawai Hall Committee by a time Lint she specified. On being approached by the police, Airs Bkizina admitted writing two letters, stating that she had |,ecu informed of the tacts by her husband and a friend, and that she was unaware that she was doing wrong in threatening Nitz with a criminal action. Counsel for the accused, at the trial, contended the facts did not disclose the commission of an offence under Section 1209 of the Crimes Act, inasmuch as it was not proved that there was any intention on the part of accused to extort anything lor herself. He submitted that Section 269 means that to constitute an offence, there must 1* proof that an accused intended to extort something for himself ; and that proof that his object was to gam something for another was insufficient. Air A. Fair, Principal I .aw Officer, appeared for the Crown on appeal. Respondent was not represented by counsel, but a submission in writing was made to the Court by her. At- the trial, Counsel lor the Crown contended it was immaterial whether the accused’s acts resulted in gain for herself or another, and that the evidence disclosed an offence. He submitted that the language of the-sec-tion was wide enough to cover a case of extortion or gain for the benefit of third parties, and that the words “extort or gain” do net necessarily imply that the pressure applied must be applied solely for the benefit of the person applying such pressure. Counsel uthe Crown further contended that the case came within the mischief which the Section was designed to prevent. No authority was directly in I-omb and the interpretation of the Section must rest on general principles. The Court reserved its decision.