RESIDENT MAGISTRATE'S COURT.

Nelson Evening Mail, Volume XI, Issue 116, 8 May 1876, Page 2

RESIDENT MAGISTRATE'S COURT.

[Before L. Beoad, E q., R.M ] Patrick Mulquin w.s charged with deserting bis wife ana\ family at We..tpor.t. Defendant sta'ed that He was.ii. Nel.on on. r-usin.ess, and had nd intention of deserting his wife. He waß admitted to bail until further particulars could be obtained. On Sa'urday a protection order was granted to Emma Whiting a.ainst her husband, and this morning Mr Pitt ajp. ied for alimony Jo the extent of ,_2ven shillings a week for .each of two chi'dron under ten years of age. Order granted. Para Para Company v. Andrew Russell, This was an action for al ! otment-raoney on 25 shares £25, and two cilia of 10s each on the same number, tot.l £50. Mr. Fell appeared for the plaintiffs, and called Mr. Webster, the Secretary of the Company, and put in evidence the certificate of incorporation, the application for the shares, the receipt ior the application money, the second and regu'ar allotment. paper,, and the register of shareholders, and said thata'l the shares applied for were allotted; that the fiiet allotment was irregularly is.uei by Mr. Anderson from Wellington when only 6,500 shares were applied for, and -baton his return to Nelson the whole B,<)oo.were arranged to be taken up, arid the second allotment paper was issued. Mr. Acton Adams, who appeared for the defendant, admitted the signature and receipt of the papers to save the expense of taking evidence elsewhere. He then cross-examined Mr Webster (putting the articles of association and Directors' minute book in bb evidence), and elicited that the Secretary had no proof oeyond the allotment piper of any allotment having made; that all the Directors - had never attended a m.eting, and that the Nels.n Directors only had decided that four should form a quorum'; and that all the shareholders but the defendant and one in Christchurch had paid the allotment money. Ke-exnmined by Mr Fell: The Directors in Melbourne have always ratified the proceed- ■ ingß of the Nelson Directors. Mr Acton Adams then addressed the Court and contended that the plaintiffs could not succeed on the .allowing poiuts:— (.1). There wis no evidence of any allotment, and by the Bth a- ction of the articles of association the Directors were to allot shares to the applicants, which meant by resolutipo. (2.) The defendant's evidence taken in Dunedin showed th.t on receipt of the first a _otmen% whereby the Directors asked him to pay the allotment money, although only 6500 >h.rea were taken up, he repu iated the agreement, and did not pny as therein requested, and thin non-pa.---m -tt was a refusal. (3.) Tint the Company was incorporated prior to the allotment (if any), aod pending the repudiation. (4 ) That the calls wefe not made by all the D irectors^ and less than all had no power under article 83 to fix the quorum. Mr Fell repl ; ed that the register was evidence, and thatthe second, allotment cured, any defect in the first. The third objection raised a difficult point of law. which he was not prepared to argue then. As to the fourth objection, the Melbourne Directors had always rat fled the Ntlson procce _nga. His Worship Baid he should take time to consider the points, and deliver a written judgment, but he might s<y that there waa hardly a hope of the plaintiff's succeeding, as the objections seemed well founded.