DISTRICT COURT, REEFTON

Inangahua Times, Volume IV, Issue 99, 23 November 1877, Page 2

DISTRICT COURT, REEFTON

— -t TIJITBSDjAY, NoVBMIiER, 22xn, 1877. (Before His Hoj-'ob Ju^ge Weston), The Coyrt having been formally opened tbe* Clefk reported that .there:' was-; no business'iu th,? criminal su:isdictiou of the Court. His Honor, felt pleased at the announcement, a,nd congratulated the district upon its orderly disposition. CIVIL JUBISDICTIOIf. In the matter of Don Pedro Anderson, and in the matter of tbe Sir Julius Y°gel Company, (in liquidation), and in the matter of " The D.ebtor'^ and (^editor's Act." Mr Pitt o,n behe!{ pf the Don Pedro. Anderson, moved under the 100 j.li section, of ' ■ Tbe Mining Companies Act " for an order to remove the name of Dpn Peo\}*o . Anderson from the list of contributories of the Str Julius Yogel Qompany, and to substitute in lieu thereof tbe nain,e of the trustee in Anderson's estate, and asking for a further order to stay execution, and restrain the bailiff from a seizure of cer-. tain shares in the Anderson's Extended Company, the property of the afpresaid Don Pedro Anderson. Mr Guinness explained that he had just been instructed by the liquidator of the Sir Julius Yogel Company to appear for. tbat Company, but he (Mr Guinness) felt in somo difficulty. Prior to the ca*_* coming on ho bad .been instructed fco appear on behalf of Louis Davies a contributory in the matter of the Sir Julius Yogel Company, Ho had been instructed that Mr, Pitt had hitherto acted for tho iiquidfitipp in this matter; • His Honor suggested that the difficulty could be overcome by. Mr Guinness. ap* pearing for .the liquidator, and this course wus followed. . Mr Guiness thon raised as a preliminary objection that the Court having already delivered n solemn judgment upon the mat tpr it was not competent to re«open it. The Courts would not encourage applications of this, class. , Tbo matter, had been, already, hcjird and-.d-;tenu.iue.l. And no sufficient ground had-beM shown* wh-jr tho. Court sjiould review, a solemn deci-* sion, Mr Pitt replied that at the former eearifig, the. whole of the parties involved -were. not beforo the Court. Though the tv^o cases were in some respects analogous, the whole of the facts had not been hefore, the Court on, the, former occasion, and these facts would now be presented, and the case would therefore come og.in aij entirely new form. His Honor,-- After hearing cotinsel. at some length, said, he felt inclined to let the case proceed. It might not be at all times aijbyisablp to re-open oases already disponed of, but he was anxious to.render tho Court as serviceable as possible, and when reasonable ground was shown he woujd not shut out a, claim, for redress. The case wojild therefore. proceed. Mr Pitt proceeded to read- the. affidavit of Dpn Pedro Anderson, which' set forth " That I was a shareholder in several companies^, indebted, apd nnable to-dis-charge my liabilities^and^fijed under the " Debtors'^and Creditors' Act," aud i v f piy ' list of liabilities, duly inserted the ,name) .of the Sir Julius Yogel Company, as acreditor;* That 'William M'Leati was the trustee' in my estate, and upon whose, report .]j< received my discharge, on the* 18th ]\f^ay." That' subsequent to my dis> charge, the list of contribupories iii the Sir J,ulius tfogei Company, .was settled' and Mr M.'Lean inadvertently inserted my nfime as a coptrib titory in that Company. A,bout the ,31st J_ily, I received . from. the. liquidator a notice of demand as kuch contributory, and thereupon gave,; notice, to the liquidator ot my. discharge Under the " Debtors' apd Creditors' Act.' ■ On the 31st October last, the liquidator , acting under the pressure of Louis Davies, a cqiitr.ibu.fory, seized certain shares belonging tb me, suoh shares having been acquired, by. me since the dy.te of my discharge. A long, legal argument ensued, betweon counsel, at the close of which, judgment, waa delivered-. . » .:>-..' His Honor said .the Court ■ w,as movedto substitute tho name of William M'Loan, trustee in the ostato of D. P. Anderson, iv lieu of that of D. P. Andorson, ou the list.of contributories of the

Sir Julius Yogel Company /and upon that to restrain the bailiff from a seizure of certain chares, The only point for fhe Court to decide was as to whether tbe fipplipant bad made put a case sufficient to entitle.. h^n to tliese Ijeifj sougb^tp£|if. notice $M rb c _^|;''notyinte"rfCTe.-^f th^^iiq^houli^ .ntijinst §§§. app. caifil&enfh . liquii^j.r Mould |e|'leftgto of 'We glares, and if Ife exceeded Ki3 authority would be liable, Witb the latter poini, however, the Court had nothing to do. The noti ac qerv.ed upon tiie liquidator at the time of the seizure of the shares treated as quite immaterial, fhe fact as to whether or not Anderson's name was u,pon tbe list of contributories, reliance being had upon tho ''Debtors' apd Ctoditors' Act.'- .far release,, and the i liquidator was \u that .notice threatened with proceedings if tbe sale was carried out. Now if tliis contention were sound it would be qmtc immaterial whether the Court ordered the rectification of tho register as sought. Assuming, however, that the need did exist, what reasonable claim had applicant to the relief sought ? He had been guilty of singular negligence in 'the matter. So long as his circumstances rendered him indifferent as tq w hethor his name was oit or c.ff the list he allowed the matter to slumber, but finding at length that his circumstances had altered, and he was in jeopardy he came to the Court for, release. But his negligence had carried him too. far. and ho bad forfeited lus ciaim to. relief* As to the real merits of the case the Oourt was not called upon to offer any opinion. In auy case were the Cq.urt to, mako an order in the matter it would be final, and the rigbt of appeal would : be gone. It would be open now for the parties to take the. case before a jury in an action at law, and it would theu be open to appeal to the Supreme Court if deemed necessary. Tbe ovder would therefore be refused with £Ct Os costs. Ia the Matter of the Rainy Creek Company (in liquidation.) . : Mr Guinness, on behalf <of certain creditors in tbe estate, m^ved for an order coto firming the appointment of Henry G;eojrge Hank in. as liquidator in the estate. •■ By consent it was agreed that the application, sho.uld stand . adjourned until Monday next, at 1(1. o'clock. In the Matter of the Noji.tii. Sjati Gotp, Mixing. CoMjPAN-y (in liquidation.) Mr Davies- the liquidator in tljw esta-te, reported that the whole of thp creditors in the estate had been paid 20,* in t,Ue £, and there remained a credit balance in hand of £75. The whole of the contributions had boen paid up by a, fen* persona, and there were a number of other contributories in the estate who were in a position to pay if they could only be get at. It was therefore the., wish of t.he- contributories who had pii . that tlic amount in hand instead of being distributed pro rata. r.should be applied in* endeavouring to conlpel other of the contributories to pay their ddhts. m ' ' k , ; j •*- " ■■" His Honor was' glad 'to leaVn * (hat .tite. estate, had been sn successfully .*w .**ke.d. Tho Court had felt: 'Some anxiety about ths-estatc',.iis ihevprdceedtji.ss, Jia'd- been, pending, for. .si .eh iy.6ngthVof .tiray, *bjjt the Court had placed conG dence in th. gentlemeti [■■&i\m&l\ft i iiss6p& of liq .i'dator, and 4hereifpre Irri'cf.nofe'calied ii|>on -■3t.h"c liquidator'- in' tfie'prssent ; ease. •• to, make the statement now_ •voluatee_ l ed v .i v 'Thfe result showed that' the 'confidence of the Court had not been." misplaced^ He quite approved of the steps intended to be taken for the recovery of outstanding contributions. No doubt the professional gentlemen would be able to advise , ; the proper course to be taken in , that direction, and it could be relied upon that the Court would do its utmost to deal out eryiai justice to' creditors arid'.o&tributopes alike. ■•-.-.■•.. In the Matter of. the. Rainy Q.ap. Cqii» PANT (in liquidation.)' <■ ■;■ Mr Guinness, applied, -for ;&n -Ord|r: $ epnble the liquidator to,. ; drajV:_ri?fti<>tha estpt'o the sum of £80 t<. defr. y Atiipeifstya of.'wjnding up. '. " '. ';•-■' ..'..,"-. J,'. ;'.,,'. ','..... lh Pitt, is; soiicj^qr 'foe' i&gh _m~ awi Allen, creditors ip v thp estate, pqjafc'd^ohV that, his .oliept's' - w .^e^k^dj-^^Rfe*, fci*.*ntjal ..cueditfti^ in ... foj*..tlie. su*i\ of £sO^ia^d^uVe;o*^%|i tiwfedlaitt^ 'shohl^'bW .r.vi. i _ i. i*o;wioo^-i*fi gn ? ,'iii». ■infldfj "-bs^ _fi|?P$ r Wi To ii.OM.lcjo >iii Vii ,U ;.. d'f-_*:&ond»". said of'dvf jnsi. yivo^td gdjftfoir^i'^' irrespective^: efv'uny. claims!. )ThV amplication could jbo *'ese_if 'ed ih Gh l a**b^i*^'Vwbe'n tho yeq ui r. d .->' order wo . Id. be. granted.- '.' ''■■■ A [ y '' 3 . , .., In, the maVfej of the rfpctisT|TE,'tt*HtD&AUtXC GoiiD.'MifVING. AND SLtrrOING! COM«v pany. Nelson Creek. * Mr Pitt on behalf of Mr, .11. H. J. Reeves, and W. H. Jones presented a,' petition for winding up the affpirs of the abOV.e Opiqpany. Hp read<the affidavit of Mr' Reeves in support of the: petition which' Set fofth in general terms that thp Company had .sujjpeqdodi operations for ,a period of. oyer twelve months ; and that t|ie Company was unable to meet its clii' gagements, and other allegations. He (.Mj* J^itt^was. instructed. that.there was a, reasonable prospect of ths. Company oVeivcomjiig i(s, difficulties, .and .he ihorqfqye asked that. thepetitipn be adjourned until the next sitting of the Court to enable tiie sbareholnera to provide for the liabilities of the Company, The chief object in view was to close tho books of tho Company in

the interval, and so prevent, the transfer of shares. Mr Guinness appeared on behalf of seyeral- shareholders of tho Company to op|>qse the^application. The Court would, no^helfelt^onsent to an adjounimpiiJUCdj tl^petitioTii 5 . except npon si^bstantiaf g]pitj|s. Mr Reeve's affidavit went for, lfgthinfe. Eve.rjmllegation in it was vague i-f'ttjie esom^:and nptliing bad been disclosed®, warrant the Court in casting the Company In the expanse o.f winding np or toj-i^tify tho closing of the register. After hearing counsel at great length, bis Honor refused the application, lie concurred with Mr Gumness that the affidavit before the Court did not disclose sufficient to warrant an adjournment. An adjournment could only be granted upon grounds -suflbient to warrant the Court in ordering that the Company should be" plnaed in liquidation, and in tbe absence of that it would be manifestly unfair to involve the Companj'. There was nothing specific in Mr Reeve's affidavit**.; While the Court was anxious to afford p^ery pros tection td creditors of comyaiKc . it was bound to deal equitably with 'shareholder?, and nothing had b-on addiicedOto justify the. Court in suspending the proceedings. The order, would, therefore, be refused with. £5,5? costs. ;' '„/ il '