TRANSFER OF SHARES. Auckland, August 31.

Te Aroha News, Volume VI, Issue 296, 5 September 1888, Page 4

TRANSFER OF SHARES. Auckland, August 31.

A RATHEK important case, William Thorn v. The "Leadei" Newspaper Company, came on befoie Hi- Honor Mr Justice Gillies? in Chambei>, on August 31. Mr Stone moved tor the rectifying of the reiiibter of the defendant Company by placing thei eon a 'certain transfer,, for 20 shares fiom William Thorne to Mary Fishei. Mr Theo. Cooper opposed the application. From affidavits filed on both bides it appeared that William Thorne transferred the 20 shares ii> question to one Mary Fisher of Auckland, widow, and that the directors of the Company refused to accept the transfer. Mr Thorne wrote pointing out the legal and moral xeason for their accepting this transfer, and showing that, whether the said Mary Fisher was a dummy or not, they were bound to place the transfer on their books. The defendant Company stated that they had made search, and no such Mary Fisher had been found, but a further affidavit by Mr Thorne put in in courtesy showed that the said Mary Fisher at the time of the transfer did reside in Auckland, but was at pre&ent on a visit to Australia. Mr Cooper said that his clients admitted the legal pesition Mr Thorne took up, but they objected to accept the transfer ou two grounds : First, that under Section 28 of the Companies Act, 1882, the names, addresses, and occupations of all witnesses to a transfer must be appended, which had noc been done in Mr Thome's case. Secondly, that according to Table A ot the same Act under which all transfers would be made, the address and occupation of Mary Fisher as given by Mr Thorne was nob sufficient. He contended that even when the transferee was a person of straw the directors were justified in refusing to accept the transfer unless the detailed address and occupation was given. Mr Stone urged that Auckland was a sufficient address,particularly as in letters after given, as seen and produced, such detailed information had been given. As for the witnesses' adclre&sos and occupations he urged that this was not absolutely necessary. His Honor was of opinion that the objection to there not being given the detailed address and occupation of the transferee would not be fatal to the motion, but the absence of the witnesses addresses and occupations, as clearly required by section 28, must prove fatal. The want of this fully justified the directors in refusing to accept the transfer of shares, so he would make no order and would allow the defendants costs, two guineas. — "Auckland Star."