BELL v. CLARKE.

Mataura Ensign, Volume 7, Issue 365, 13 June 1884, Page 3

BELL v. CLARKE.

A recent, cable message announced that an action between' theke parties 'had qom- ' meneed'in- tli& Melbourne Equity Cojir-fc. Very few particulars regarding the niafcfcer have yet been, published : ; but/we find the 'Argus' summarising the statements otjthe : plaintiff ?J aM^defeh'da'nt ' as follows;:— The plaintiff • « is ■> iMr .• George : Meredith 8e11,., who, .owned ,a , sheep/ stationj in SputhWd, New £ealanc|.;. : Tlie defendant 'is ]Si? Joseph Clark,' wEo held a mortgage py.er the , station^ ,Tho defendant '■ l bwnWstation property a ! dj6inirig that of: the plaintiff. : In 1878 the plaintiff,: the ■ i defendant and. the owners Jof two other stations adjoining, , agreed, /to unite j to T gether ' W sell their property to a com- » vpanyitpsb.e 'floated!. in! iLondon.:;and |Sir ' Julius Yogel ? .aud : ,Mr/^V. Larnach were appointed attorneys $or the vendors to act ijt i%lrf)iidpn. A prospectus, w^.s issued 1 1 for^re formation * ol a ' ; conipahy fto be •* li&Wd.~~llte WeW^Ze&l&nd:; ' Agricultural : Company, 'wiC 1 '^ I capital of one million ; t pojiiids. -n'Th& company was' to. purchase the properties, | !fi p^ the vendors If or L 1,079,000, tobe'paid partly in edsh, Sartly in.paid-up shares, and partly in ebentures. The company was fornied; " tales, which comprised in the aggregate 167,769 acres freehold, and 141,675 acjres. of leasehold, with 167,500 sheep, U2 1 «'** hetiflLQivckMei and' : with improvenlents, The company tpok possession of the pro-. perty in' 1870, -hut 6wiiig ! to the destr!notion of the grass by the rabbits on some of the stations,,, and (S fr.pm v other causes, the company insisted' upon receiving ) .£oneessions:.M The .plainlif& sp.id that he ought, no^, give, any conoessions, as"he had kept his' station free, from rabbits, and the sheep he delivei-ed • were nearly equal to- > the' number represented tp r be on it, ,b.ujs. ,that. o the other, l ' f 'Owners ( had p all6wed "their" : stations to beK -cbm'e^infesliedP'with : rabbits,*, with J KTestiltttfat'thtf: .^tktions -had' deteriorated; x\ MriGlaxkeiiaa^-acted' 1 generally on be-, r^jiialfdof tt-he riOthers,- and onithe complaint "being made by th,e ...company he m4de concessions by agreeing to abandon EiPO,OOO or the purchase money, and he stiibsequeAtly/.gav^ thevCQmpa.ny conces^ gions to the extent of another £200,000. All ! the* dther rr "vendors had- either been paidrorisatisfiedy except the- plaintiff, and ha claims tha^t a^rge^ sum is duej;p him from 'ciaxH&'qn .account ' of ihs pwsaetion,' and lie 1 J has therefore i nstituted ao fjfavtftt>6e&Mng!fbr accdunts 'and asking. to "he pajd what he is entitled to receive, The defendant' denies that there.was any >laintifE should not bear Ki3 proportion of the concessions to ;the>. company: •• !/