MAGISTERIAL.

Patea Mail, Volume IX, Issue 1120, 3 December 1883, Page 2

MAGISTERIAL.

PATE A—FRIDAY, Nov. 30.

(Before His Worship the Mayor; and Dr Croft, J.P,’s.) .Civil. OASES.

Colonial Land Settlement and Endowment Association v. Nutsford —Claim, £6. Mr Hnmcrton appeared .for the plaintiff. . The folltftmg is the' remainder of the evidence of Mr J. O’Dea in the above case:— After comparing the dates of these documents I am certain I received the allotment paper first, and from Auckland. I received a number of others along with this one. I collected the money for this and the others, and sent a bank draft to Wellington through the Bank of New South Wales. When Mr Cook appointed, too ng.eiit he said the work'was to be done economically, and he did not proi.nise me any commission. When I wrote to him with the bank draft, I told him I could not act as agent any longer and recommended him to appoint a commission agent. The letter (produced) is the answer. In this letter he recommends I should pay local accounts without reference to the Directors. I next received letter (produced) requesting me to make a call. In this letter he recommends -mo to send the call direct to him without registration. After I had refused to act for the Company I received a letter (produced) stating that I was to have commission. That was the first intimation 1 had that I was to have commission. I received letter (produced) which stated that I was to have 6d commission per share for the shares sold by mo, provided ] collected the calls and proxies, Mr Cook forwarded me a lot of proxy papers made out in his favour. On receipt of that letter I called a meeting of shareholders and pointed out to them the steps Mr Cook had taken. After discussing the matter we decided that we would scratch out Mr Cook’s name and put in that of Bishop Redwbod. We did so and sent the papers to Wellington. They were all duly signed by the shareholders. There were about 50. When the proxies were lodged at the Company’s office Mr Cook said they could not be acted on, as the calls were not paid, and he rejected them. According to the rules of the Association ho was justified in rejecting them. I was sent by the Patoa shareholders to attend the meeting of shareholders in Wellington on the 25th July, which I did. This meeting was adjourned till the following day owing to the chairman not attending. Th re were six present at the meeting. The meeting, was finished on the 26th. The report (produced) was considered at the meeting. One of my objects in attending the meeting was to ask questions on that report. After the minutes of the previous meeting had been read and confirmed, I asked the permission of the chairman to make a few remarks on the report and balance sheet. To this Mr Cook strongly objected, and called the attention of the chairman to ray being out of order. The chairman, however, consented to my addressing the meeting. I asked the chairman what was the.meaning of the first item under the heading Expenditure: Bonus charges £25. -Mr Cook refused to answer at first, but on .my insisting on an answer, the chairman told him ho would have to reply. Mr Cook said it was given to a shareholder in shares so that he might act as a director of the company. I don’t know the shareholder to whom the shares were given. I next asked as to the item Commissions, £l6B 11s Id, what it was and who it went to. His reply was that it came to mo and my equals, the local agents in the various distiicts of New Zealand. In answer, I told the meeting that I was in a position to deny this as I had applied to Mr Cook for my commission and he had

refused it, I asked about the item salaries, £460 2s 9d. The Chairman’s reply was “ I .suppose it’s for Cook.” I then asked the chairman who fixed the salary and ho said “ I suppose Cook himself.” No other directors made any remark, nor did Mr Cook contradict the statement. The next item I asked about was £IOO, directors fees, which Mr Cook said was fixed by the directors for themselves, but that none of them would accept of it. I did not ascertain from him where the money was at that time. Mr Michael Boltin,'whoso name appears .on the Articles of Association and also on the Memorandum of Association, informed mo that he had no shares and that ho had never taken up any in the Company, and that Mr Cook had been to him and requested him to put his name in the book in order that ho might gel shares taken np as ho travelled through the country. Previous to the meeting on tho 26th, I had an opportunity of speaking to Mr Richard Dignan, who is represented as being the holder of ton shares, and I asked him if ha was a shareholder. He fold me that it was only a few days before I saw him that he had taken fifty shares, 1 gathered from him that before ho took those fifty shares lie had none at all, also, that Mr Cook had .induced him to fake these shares in order that he might place him on the directory. It appears from the Articles of Memorandum that tho Hon. W. Clifford, one of the first directors of the Company, has only ten shares, whereas by Rule 6, he should hare at least 50. Messrs Dignan and O'Brien informed mo that they had advanced by bill to Mr Cook the sum of £25 for expenses. They gave me to understand that it wag to be paid hack by Company’s money—ns Cook collected it from the shareholders. Michael Grogan: I am a Catholic priest in tho'Fntea and ILiwera districts. Unfortunately I have 20 shares in this Company. 1 remember Mr Cook very well. I first mot him at Wnvcrley.- lie explained the advantages of the Company, and asked me to explain them to the congregation. lie argued that it would relieve witness and other priests and Catholics of the burden they had of educating the children. I explained to the congregration, and I have been sorry for it ever since. To the best of my recollection ho said that 15,000 shares had been taken np. I mentioned this statement to several persons. On the Sunday morning following I encouraged tho Company ami urged the congregation to take shares, but from what I heard and suspicions I had of the man’s character I did not recommend tlio congregation to take up shares. He asked me to act for him, hut 1 did not do so beyond giving one rocelpTT He stated to me that there was a facility for shareholders to re-sell their shares to tho Company if they were not satisfied. I held that out ns nn inducement to others to take shares. I was in Wellington last year and saw Mr Cook. He said, “I believe there is an ill feeling against me in the district, I replied that it was not without reason, as the people had been deceived, Mr Cook said that tho best thing they could do was to have their money refunded, and I replied, “ Well, Mr Cook, I’ll be one of the first to take mine. I’ll take it immediately.” He turned away, and did not wish me good-bye. I did not get the money. lam aware through Mr Cook' that the education elapses have been expunged from the Company’s regulations. I received notices that these clauses had been struck. The whole interest which induced mo to join the Company has been removed. Mr Cook stated to me while in the district that no shareholder in the Company could be a director unless ho held fifty shares, and would I take fifty. This was all tho evidence.

Mr Hamerton (smiling) : I am exceedingly sorry that yonr Worships happened to bo on the bench. The case ought to have been heard by the stipendiary, but it was fixed for to-day and could not be adjourned. Dr Croft (ironically);. Yon look very sorry, Mr Hamerton. (Laughter), The Court then adjourned.