RESIDENT-MAGISTRATE'S COURT REEFTON.

Inangahua Times, Volume IV, Issue 50, 3 August 1877, Page 2

RESIDENT- MAGISTRATE'S COURT REEFTON.

Tuesday, July 29, 1877. [Before Edward Shaw, Esq., R.M.] KASSLBB V. DEFIANCE COMPANY. Upon the Court resuming. Mr Staite summed up, urging that the Company in preferring Larkin and allotting him the forty shares, committed a wrong upon the plaintiff, and as there could be no wrong without a remedy, the plaintiff was entitled to the damages claimed, inasmuch as the company was by their own acts unable to give him the shares in question, Mr Pitt, for the defendants, claimed the judgment of the Court upon the | general ground that the plaintiff had failed to prove the material averment in his particulars, viz., that he was entitled to have the forty shares in question allotted to him. Under the circumstances, he was placed at a disadvantage, not having the benefit of the instructions which the manager, if present, could have given, and being compelled to gain his information really from the plaintiff's case. He contended that the allotment, according to the plaintiff's own case, took place on the 23rd June, at which time the shares were cleirly Larkin's, not having been transferred to Schulhoff until the 24th ; and that the confirmation by the special meeting on the 3rd Ju'y related back to the allotment of the directors on the 23rd June . His Worship said tha f , after the long time the case had occupied, and the exhaustive arguments of counsel, he did not think it necessary to delay judgment. He considered that the plaintiff bad established his case, and was entitled to the judgment of the Court. He could not help remarking upon the extraordinary manner in which the transfers of these shares had been effected. Qne transfer, prepare I by Mr Bayfeild, was, as could be expected, correct in every particular, and upon that transfer no question. The other was almost unique for its irregularities. To notice some — the transferee was improperly described ;. no numbers of shares were given, and the transfer under which Schulhoff affected to derive title was. da,ted on. the 24th, the d^y after the transfer by Sch'ilhoff, and that day a Snndvir. Il" whs su^'jested that Ln-liin only snU 10ft shores without ill- 1 n<'fy«Hi/ allotted share-*. Rut vyis there nny evidence of tltyit either u,pon the document?, or otherwise?. I here wms nonp. It spenyrl to hinj that the whole actioM of the directors, ami the *»secte>l confirmation by the special meeting was i illegal ; anil whether illegal or not. for some reason unexulaitird, and lipi*anse. Larkin made some clnim, he was preferred to ilip pjnintiff, and obtained the disputed shares. Although the transfer was obviously irregular the company had accepted it, tQd he thought that they were bound, by that acceptance. Thinking as he did that the plaintiff had suffered a wrong at the hands of the directors, and that the company was bound by the action of the directors, the plaintiff was entitled to the judgment of the. Court. The plaintiff had not proved any special damage, aad the judgment would there*, fore be the proved value of th§ scrip —£14, w.itb costs. Jaundiced Views. The bilious and dyspeptic subject takes "jaundiced views" of everything, always looks at the worst side. He is despondent, gloomy, full of forebodings, in short, a most wretched indHduah Let him, take heart of grace. There is a, certain remedy, for this depression for his gastric tortures, for all the ills that a disordered stomach, and liver inflict, Udolpho Wolfes Schiedam Aromatic Schnapps, taken thrice a day, will make a different man of, him in a month.— Advt.