COURT OF APPEAL

Hokitika Guardian, 23 April 1925, Page 1

COURT OF APPEAL

—— ■ . . . THE STF.VWIMGIIT CASE. WELLINGTON. April 21. In the case of the Wellington Bowling Club v. J. I). Sievwriglit, the Court of Appeal delivered judgment to-day in favour of the howling club, but. refused to allow costs to the successful appellants.

Air Justice Sim staled that the four articles on which the company purported to expel Sievwriglit were all u.tra vires, anil the share of a member could not be forfeited and taken by tho company without .sanction of the Court, ns tin’s resulted in the company buying its own shares. The question before the Court was whether respondent ever became a member of the bowling club. lie. was elected in 1907 and given a share that had been previously allotted to the Alaudsley. At licit time more shares had been allotted by the company than were provided for in the articles of tho association, and consequently there was no share for Sievwriglit. Tho directors had treated Article 2J as valid, and when a member resigned had allotted his share to another person. Clearly Alaudsley was the owner of the share allotted to him anil Sievwriglit could not own it too. Tl was ultra vires of the company to issue shares which it did not own. The company was not ■stopped from showing (liar, respondent was not a shareholder, although it had treated him wrongly as a shareholder for seventeen years. The appeal would he. allowed, but as the true facts bad just been brought to light respondent ought, not to he ordered to pay costs. Air Justice Reed agreed that iSievwrighl was not entitled to any rebel from the Court, lb' also thought appellants should be deprived ol costs. Mr Justice Adams’ judgment was substantially similar to those ot .Instil c Reed and Sim.

C-I.AR.KE v. POULTRY FARMERS. In Clarke v. Poultry Farmers, the up,pea I was allowed with costs on [lie middle scale, judgment for a non-suit |o be entered in the Dover Court with costs and disbursements against respondent. The decision, delivered by Mr Justice Adams, was that there was a special promise to answer lor tile lebt and not being in writing, as required by Hie Slat ul c of Frauds, it was unenforceable by action. M r Just ice Ostler differed from tho Court, giving bis opinion that the •redibility of witnesses alone was in issue, and the finding of Hie Chict fuslice in the Lower Court should not be disturbed. A TIM ARE CASE.

In Tirnai it Harbour Board v. r i tii,aril Borough Council the appeal was allowed with costs on the middle scale as from a- distance. Ihe Ceui t delivered judgment through Air Justice Ostler, and held Hull the land was reclaimed as part of the work lot- protection. improvement and utilisation from the sea. brought about, by the work undertaken for the protection ot the harbour, and must be treated as pari ~f that. work. The particular land came within tho very delmitnm of harbour works, and was therelore exempt from Section 2 (K) of Hie Rating Act. and no rates were payable in respect of itThe other Judges concurred. ROSENEATH lift. In the Rosonoalli lilt case, flic Appeal Court decided against Hie City Council, and granted an injunction just tlie construction ot the lilt. \ TRANSFER of land. In the Full Court case. Saunders ami the Church Property Trustees v. the District Land Registrar, the judgment given was that the Regis must register the transfer ami that there was no sub-division within the meaning of the Act. Tn Saituders.s ease the costs of both parties are to pay tlu‘ir own eo>ls, as no spot »•< fund is available.