CIVIL SIDE.

Thames Star, Volume XIV, Issue 4406, 16 February 1883, Page 2

CIVIL SIDE.

THAMES NEW3PAPES CO. V. 8. ENSOE.

Claim £2 15s for calls. This case had been adjourned for the purpose of proving that the defendant was a shareholder.

Mr Miller, who appeared for the Co., said it was perfectly clear that Mr Ensor had agreed to take the shares, a receipt had been given to him for the payment of his 12s 6d, as a preliminary call, and there was nothing to shew that he repudiated the sale of shares.

The Bench said that the defenda.it was quite justified in falling back on the 1860 Act, under which the company had been formed. There was no doubt that the defendant mnde application for shares and had paid the 12s 6d, but this took place prior to the incorporation of the company. The position of shareholders was then defined. Shareholders of a compaoy were those who signed the memorandum of association of the company, and those who came in afterwards, and in the present case there was no acceptance of the shares shown subsequent to the registration of the company. The defendant had uol signed the memorandum of assoeiatiou. The company had not defined :y their rules whao the acceptance of stui-^s was, as they could have done. The evidence showed that Ensor was not a sheiMholder. He would nonsuit the plaintiff without costs.

M CISEY-T. JF. BNOWLING. Claim for £9 3s 6d. Mr Miller, for plaintiff, asked aa adjournment for a fortnight, which was granted., B. HOES T. EDGAR MASOH. Claim, £5 9s Bd, for milk. The defendant pleaded infancy, a:.d also denied his liability, as he was not a

partner in the firm who incurred the debt. J. B. Mason, the father of the defendant, deposed that his son Edgar was born in August, 1862, and was therefore nofc yet 21& years of age. He produced a memorandum of the date of birth.

Mr Miller contended that infants were liable for necessaries, and he contended that milk was a necessary1 —it was to most infants. _

The defendant, sworn, examined by Mr Miller —Had not lived at tho Imperial Hotelfrom 26th August to about a "-"fort-" night ago. May have had a meal at the honse during' that time. Gave verbal notice to complainant that he would not be responsible for any debts contracted by the firm, as he was retiring from it. Told the plaintiff's man about a month ago that what milk he supplied while he was there- he would pay for as it was delivered.

Francis Trembeth, employed by plaintiff to deliver milk, swore he supplied the hotel with milk. The defendant engaged him to supply the milk, about the end of June last. He never was told, by ...\ Mason that the latter was going but of the business. The defendant's brother told witness to send in a bill at the end of every month. Saw defendant frequently after August in the hotel. The supply was stopped in January, when defendant said if the milk was continued he would see it paid for. ? '•'♦B J. Horn, the plaintiff said he had supplied the milk. Had no notice that defendant had left the business,- believed be with his brother was still continuing it. I The defendant's father said-he had told tho plaintiff's servant that' Edgar Mason has left the business, and was only v acting as barman during his brothers illness. Had informed the defendanthimself ;* to the same effect, ; The witness Trembatb, was re-called and swore that he had never been informed of Mr Edgar Mason leaving the business. Judgment for the amount claimed, £5 9s Bd. and costs, £2 6s. '■';'„ ■ . , , ; .

LIEBELSE V. MCKENZIK. Claim for £3, work and labor done. ■ £3 5s was paid into Court. Judgment for amount claimed and £1 7s costs. The case Schofield and Moore v. F. Mclsaac was adjourned for four weeks