RESIDENT MAGISTRATE'S COURT.

Patea Mail, Volume 1, Issue 34, 7 August 1875, Page 2

RESIDENT MAGISTRATE'S COURT.

MONTHLY SITTING. Thursday, August 7, 187'). (Before Major Turner, R.M.) TALLIN V HUDSON. Summons not issued. Enlarged till 2nd September. TOWN HALT, COMPANY V DANIKL9. To recover the sum of £0 5s Id, being amount of six calls due on 10 shares 'Held by defendant in the above company. Mr Fitzhorbert appeared for defendant, and Mr William Dale, Secretary to the company, conducted the case on behalf of the company. Mr Fitzlmrbert drew the Court’s attention to a discrepancy which appeared between the summons am! bill of particulars—one being' made out in the name of the Sucre-' tary and the other Palea Town Hail Company. Tne Bench directed the necessary amendment. William Dale, having been sworn, said I appear as representative of the Patna Town H ill Company, and the debt sued for is for calls due, on shares held by defendant, with interest at the rate of 15 per cent added. His Worship—What! You can’t sue for 15 per cent interest. Witness.—The articles of assocVion o:- - prcssly provide for it. I produce register of shareholders. The arlicies of asoeiation were duly signed by defendant. Mr Fitzhcrbcrt contended that the Act provided that a pro; -or shareholder’s register should be kept, and designated the register produced as a pass-book. 'if ll e occupant of the Bench said he bad Irani a shareholder in a company in Wanganui, and its Miar - egister cost £lO ICK Witness said that the book, although a miniature one, was kept m the form of a sharcregistur, and pointed out certain transfers which had been duly recorded in it. He did not sec the necessity of putting the company to a heavy expenditure for the purchase of a £2O or £4O book when a cheaper one, would answer the purpose equally as well. Mr Fitzheruert said that the 18th section of the Act provided that a list of all shareholders, with number of shares held, calls made, calls received and unpaid, should, be kept in a separate part of the register, and this had not been done. Witness referred his Worship to the 17th . 1 in so, which stated that, they may be kept in one or more books. lie said that lie had provided for everything in the Ac 4 . The Bench—The books are certainly small, but appear to be well kept, Mr Filzhcrhort contended that the danse cited by Mr Dale only provided for the opening of a now register when the old one was exhausted.

Witness produced other books, proving det'en.lani’s in.-lebtednos. Mr Fitzherbert submitted that t'oo hooks w ire not those into n led by the Act to be used by Joint Stock Companies, and that Mr 1.),d0 had not shown the slightest authority to sue in tin; name of the company. Witness then road a resolution from the Company's minute-book, dniy signed by the chairman, passed at a meeting of directors, authorising the Secretary to sue defendant. Mr Fit herb tv objected to its reception, as plaintiff had closed, his case. Witness —Surely the Bench lias power to call for niv authority to sue. Mr F it/herhort said (hat it was necessary for every incorporated company to be in possession of a seal, and the minute prutin o 1 did not appear to have (he Company’s seal affixed. Witness showed by the 45th section of the Act tint counsel was incorrect. Mr Fllzlierbert submitted that the minute rea l by witncn did nut confer the power to sue. Ho should have obtained an authority from the directors, duly authenticated by the seal of the company. The B inch deferred judgment till two o’clock, and on the Court resuming at that hour delivered the following judgment. Ji.i reading ihu resolution of the meeting hold on the Ist July, it says that the directors authorised the Secretary to take proceedings against the persons named in the previous resolution, and to appear in the 11. M. Court to represent the company. The Secretary should have obtained a written authority from the directors to act as plaintiff, the resolution only granting power to the directors to appoint Mr Dale, whoso authority to sue had not been shown, and therefore I direct a non-suit on that point;

F. MCGUIRE V. ADAMS. Claim for £9 Is, for law expenses incurred by plaintiff, whilst acting as a trustee in defendant’s estate.

Mr Fitzherbort appeared for plaintiff. F. McGuire deposed that defendant filed a deed of arrangement with his creditors, hut it subsequently fell through, owing to his failing to obtain sufficient signatures in number ami A r alue. Mr Hirst and witness were appointed trustees, and employed Mr Hughes of Taranaki, to perform certain, legal work, Mr Hughes sued witness for the costs, amounting to £9 Is, which amount lie paid to Mr Hirst as Hughe’s agent. Defendant applied for a postponement of the case, in order to afford him an opportunity of securing the services of a legal gentleman to conduct the same, as he had only arrived from Hawera that morning. Mr Fitzherhert made it a rule never to oppose an application for adjournment whenever any reasonable grounds were advanced, but on this occasion lie would oppose the adjournment, as defendant was aware that the case had been pending for some time, and had every opportunity of procuring legal assistance or opinion. Defendant said that the trustees had incurred very heavy legal expenses in direct opposition to his instructions, and contended that they had no right to sue him.

rr'm'm»» '«*M~ Mr Fitzhorbert said (bat t!ie trusters had given their services gratuitously i'or two years, and lie considered that the <: ists incurred were very moderate indeed. Adjournment granted, defendant to pay costs of same.