RESIDENT MAGISTRATE'S COURT.

Nelson Evening Mail, Volume XVI, Issue 234, 1 October 1881, Page 2

RESIDENT MAGISTRATE'S COURT.

[Before L. Br<xu>, Esq., R.M.] The following judgments were delivered this morning : — Roberts v. Doreen. The question to be decided in this oaie is Whether the plainiifif wag induced by the representations of the defendant to purchase a •hare in a mining property, aueh representation! being either untrue 4o the knowledge of th* defendant or not belieTed bj him to be true when they were made. It it prorod beyond doubt that defendant distinctly stated there were bo liabilities qh the property exceeding £50, and that there was a certain amount of capital not yet called np. The latter statement I conclude was intended to conrey the suggestion that the uncalled capital would clear off all dekts. SaTe for this representation the plaintiff would not hare bought. It is evident that there were Tery much heavier liabilities than defendant, who was oae of the trustees, stated, and I can come to no other conclusion upon consideration of all the facts than that he was aware of such being the case. Within a Tery short time after th» plaintiff boaght in, the whole affair collapsed owing to the sale of the property to pay the debts, which are admitted to h&Te amounted to £750. The case seems m principle similar to Peto v. Blades 5 Taunt, 657. I decide this caoe in equity and good conscience, as I have power to do under the 47th Section of the Resident Magiatrates Act, 1867, and it appears to me strictly just that, aa plaintiff would not hare bought but for the reprewntationg of the defandant as to the absence of lubilitieß, and as those representations were not true to the know ledge of defendant, he ought to refund the money. Judgment for plaintiff for £19 5b and costs £5 14s. Tennant v. Ntlso* Bui'ding Soeitty, The sole question is whether the plaintiff became a member of the defendant Society. On the Slat July he deposited 10s 6d subscription for nine shares, and on the following day he made application for a loan on property offered by him »3 security on the nine shares. The payment of the entrance iee io my opinion estat'.iabcd \M member-

ship, the contract wa« complete. He waa then in a position to do what he actually did, ask for a loan, for the Society can only lend to its members. But in his particulars of claim he asks for a refund of the entrance fee upon the ground that tho money waa paid to the Society "on condition " of obtaining a loan of £180. There is no evidence of any such condition having been attached to the contract of membership although the plaintiff says that waa what he intended. But the contract having been completed, and not being without consideration to the plaintiff, it would not be right to set it aside on the ground that there was an intention in the plaintiff's mind, never mentioned between the parties, that the contract w«b not to be completed unlesß another contract was also entered into. I hate no doubt that tho defendant became a momber, and that the inducement to do so was the hope of becoming also a borrower, but that the facts do not sustain the conj tention that hia becoming a borrower was a condition precedent to his becoming, a member. Judgment for defendants with coats JSI la.