DISTRICT COURT.

Temuka Leader, Issue 2507, 25 May 1893, Page 3

DISTRICT COURT.

TlMAßU— Tuesday, May 23ed. (Before His Honour Judge Robinson). IN BANKRUPTCY. Orders of discha -ge were granted to W. A. Hobbs (Mr Tripp), 0. Kelly (Mr Raymond), J. Fraser (Mr White), G. Boyd (Mr Hamilton), W. Scarfe (Mr Raymond). Applications were made and granted : For cists (to be taxed) of Deputy Assignee’s solicitor in the estate of T. E. E. Jefcoate (Mr Raymond), for costs of bankrupt’s solicitor in tho estate of W. Collins, £4 10s agreed upon (Mr Postlethwaito)). FKOBATrS AND ADMINISTRATIONS. Probate was granted of the wffls of A. Aitken, Pleasant Point (Mr Tripp) ; R. Howard, Timaru (Mr Raymond); W. Collins Pleasant Point (Mr Postlethwaite) ; and Hannah Ellison, Timaru (Mr Knubley). Letters of administration were granted, on the usual conditions, for the estates of the following deceased persons : —E. J. Gould and J. F. Page (Mr C. Perry), P. Burke (Mr Hamilton), J. Macaulay, J.T. Morris, Mrs Morris, and F Newman (Mr Raymond). CIVIL CASES. In the adjourned case J. Young v. R. Allen, claim £l6, money alleged to have been received by defendaut for plaintiff’ from a totalisator, Mr C. Perry applied for a further adjournment, the witness who was to be examined being still too ill to attend.—Adjourned till next sitting, Mi Raymond, for defendant, consenting, ►South Canterbury Building and Investment Company, Limited (by the liquidators, W. R. Quinn and A. Montgomery) v. Charles Green, claim £l5O. Mr Knubley with Mr Raymond for plaintiffs, Mr J. W. White for defendant. The claim was for two calls made on March Ist and April Ist, the former of £2 the other of £1 per share. Plaintiff’s statement set. forth (1) that the company was duly incorporated. (2) that on the 23rd September last a resolution was passed by the shareholders that the company be voluntarily wound up ; that Messrs Quinn and Montgomery were appointed liquidators ; and that on the 14th October, at a meeting of shareholders said resolution was duly confirmed. (3) That on the 9th December an order vyaa made by the Supreme Court that the voluntary wincing up of the company, commenced qn October 14th, should continue, subject to ihe supervision of the Supreme Court. (4) That defendant was and is the holder of 50 shares in the said company, aud as a shareholder is indebted to the company £l5O in respect of unpaid calls made by the liquidators as set forth in the particulars. The statement of defence (1) admitted the incorporation of the Company, aud denied all other material allegations; (2) asserted that the alleged meetings of shareholders of September 23rd and October 14th were not convened as required by law, aud therefore the resolutions passed and confirmed thereat were nugatory and of no effect; (3) denied the indebtedness in the sum named; (4) asserted that the calls referred to were illegally and improperly made, as the liquidators mentioned had no power to make such calls, Evidence having been taken, counsel argued the case at great length. His Honour gave jugdment for the plaintiff company. It appeared to him that the order of the the Supreme Court must be taken to validate what might have been considered irregularities. The objections raised were as to technical defects, aud if any of these could be considered fatal the Supreme Court if properly moved would set aside its own order. The directors had acted for the best in what what was done, and this Court should be very careful in disturbing a winding up, even if there had been no order of the Supreme Court. He must give judgment for the plaintiffs with ordinary cosis. The costs were— Court £2 6s, two witnesses £2 2s, solicitors £7 10s ; total £lllßs. The Court then adjourned until Thursday morning.