MAGISTRATE'S COURT.

Taranaki Daily News, Volume LIV, Issue 52, 23 August 1911, Page 3

MAGISTRATE'S COURT.

CIVIL BUSINESS. The usual sitting of the Magistrate's Court was held yesterday before Mr. H. S. Fitzherbert, S.M. Judgment was given for plaintiff by default in the following eases:—E. If. Kouyon (Mr. Johnstone) v. John William Ward, claim £3, costs 10a; Hallenstein Bros., Ltd. (Mr. Hutchen) v. John Cantle, claim £8 Is lid, costs £1 3s lid; J. A. Tuthill v. Mrs. Phillip Eva, costs only ss; same v. John Wilkinson, of Taihapc, claim £1 15s 9d, costs ss. JUDGMENT SUMMONS. In the judgment summons ease, A.li.C. Boot Co. (Mr. Hutchen) v. S. Stroud, claim for £2 7s (id, after hearing evidence of judgment debtor as to means, [ the Magistrate declined tb make an order. In the case A. 11. Herbert (Mr. F. E. Wilson) v. Geo. llill, of Koru, claim £6 0s (id, judgment debtor gave evidence, after which the Magistrate said he was satisfied that debtor had had sufficient money to liquidate the debt, and' made an order for payment of the amount claimed ivithin four weeks, in default fourteen days' imprisonment. CLAIM AGAINST PUBLIC TRUSTEE. The Magistrate also delivered judgment in the case in which Mr. Quilliam sought to recover from the Public Trustee, as executor of the estate of the late W. S. Pardy, the sum of £57 ss, being money lent and interest accruing thereon to It. G. Pardy. Mr. Hutchen appeared for plaintiff, and Mr. A. H. Johnstone for defendant. Evidence had been heard last court day. Mr. Fitzherbert reviewed the evidence, and said that the letter from W. S. Pardy to Mr. Quilliam, taken in conjunction with the previous conversation, contained a guarantee to pay the amount in consideration of Mr. Quilliam forbearing to take action against the son. He also reviewed at length the various legal points raised 1 by Mr. Johnstone for the defence, and gave judgment for plaintiff for the amount claimed, with coats £5 17s. CLAIMS FOR COMMISSION. • The cuss was continued in which Walter Bewley, licensed sharebroker, sued the Taranaki Petroleum Co. for £57 15s, being commission on applications for shares at 5 per cent., or, in the alternative, as damages for the refusal of the directors of the company to allot shares in respect, of the applications in question. Mr. Hutchen appeared for the j plaintiff, and Mr. Quilliam for the de-] fendant company. The case had been ad- | jammed last court day for legal argument. Mr. Hutchen argued that section 3 of the Sliarobrokers Act said that no person could act as a sharebroker unless licensed, but another section defined a sharebroker as a person who buys or sells shares. He argued that this transaction was not' for the sale or purchase of shares, but was only in regaj-d to the creation of shares. He asked leave to recall Mr. Bewley to prove that he was a licensed sharebroker. Mr. Quilliam withdrew his objections on that point. Mr. Bewley was called and produced his license. He also stated that a mis.take had been ni;ide in the receipt produced by Mr. Quilliam at the previous hearing, and that the amount of the original claim should only be reduced by £4 15s, not £6 ss. Judgment was reserved. A SIMILAR CASE. Lawrence McKenzie Monteath also sued the Taranaki Petroleum Co. for £25 commission at 5 per cent, on application for 500 shares at £l, or.' in the alternative, £35 damages on the refusal of the directors to allot the shares applied for. The same counsel were engaged. The evidence submitted was on similar lines to that in the previous case. In cross-examination, it was elicited that the application for these shares was submitted on May 10, the day after the proposed sale of the company hud been announced through the local papers. The application had been made on behalf of Mr. C. Arnold Jones. submitted that this case differed from the previous case in some' important particulars, and was a much stronger one as far as the defendants were concerned. It was impossible to come to any other conclusion than that plaintiff, .knowing, or at least having a shrewd idea, that the company would not allot the shares, had put in this application for 500 shares. If the shares were allotted it would be a good bargain, if not he would still make £25. This application had been received after the announcement of the sale of the company had appeared in the Press, and there was no reasonable probability that the shares would be allotted. Tire announcement of the sale was a clear evidence of the retraction of the company's offer of August 26, 1010. This cn.se differed from Mr. Betvley's, for whereas the latter had made continuous applications, in this case only one isolated application had been received. Mr. Hutchen submitted that the company should have definitely withdrawn its letter of August 2G if it did not wish to allot any further shares. Judgment was also reserved in this case.