IMPORTANT MINING DECISION.

Te Aroha News, Volume VI, Issue 365, 4 May 1889, Page 6

IMPORTANT MINING DECISION.

Auckland May 2. Da. Giles, R.M., gave judgment this moining in the case of John Fleming v. ]{. Fiater. MrT. Cotter appeared for plaintifl and Mr Theo. Cooper for defendant.. This was a claim tor £27 10s on account of a sale ot shares in the Saxon G.M. Co. The evidence \va3 taken at a previous sitting of the Court. His Worship said that in this case the defendant was the purchaser of certain shares in the Saxon G.M. Co., which shares the vendor, Mr Osmond, had previously sold to the plaintiff, who had neglected to register his transfer. The dofendant did register his transfer, and the plaintiff now sued for the value of the shares. As he bought with notico of defendant's prior title, the main question to be considered was whether the cour&e adopted by the dofendant was actionable. What was alleged upon the part of the plaintiff was that the person who bought with notice did so subject to that trust, and since it would be expensive for the defendant to go to the Supreme Court to compel the register of the shares, it had been decided to sue for bhe monetary damage sustained. Fiist, the question as to notice had to be dealt with. In such purchases which are subject to notice, the general rule was that such notice was sufficient, but Storey on Jurisprudence said that wheie it is a iegi&tered title, the previous notice ought to be very full and distinct indeed. In the present case, Mr O&mond refused to tell the defendant who was the purchaser of the shares in question, so that the notice couldnot be considered lull. The defendant then seemed to have gone to Mr Osmond in an angry state of mind, he being under the impression that he had been cheated by Osmond having given him a cheque which was dishonoured the next day. It was only right to mention that, as strong remarks were made about Mr Fraters conduct in the matter. He could not see that Mr Frater had acted wrongfully in any way; except the suit was taken for the purpose of declaring that the shares he held were held in trust for the plaintiff. He could not see that the plaintiff had any grounds of action against anybody unless against the vendor. The plaintiff would therefore be nonsuited with costs i! 2 10b.