RESIDENT MAGISTRATE'S COURT

Thames Star, Volume XVI, Issue 5002, 23 January 1885, Page 2

RESIDENT MAGISTRATE'S COURT

THIS DAST. (Before H. Kenrick, Esq., R.M.) CIVIL SIDE. JUDGMENTS FOE PLAINTIFFS. McCaul v. Wade.—Mr Miller for plaintiff.—Claim, £56 6s, for dishonored promissory notes. Costs, £3 12s 6d. Maxwell v. Kuranui Hill G.M. Co.—Mr Miller for plaintiff.—Claim, £9 3s, for goods supplied. Costs, £1 Is 6d. Miller v. Same.—Claim, £4 8s 4i, for professional services. Costs, 11s. Defended Case. melhose (liquidator) v. deeble. Claim, £62 10s, for calls in the Hobson G,M. Co. Mr Lush for the plaintiff', and Mr Miller for the defendant. L. Melhose deposed that he was liquidator of the Hobson G.M. Co. Produced minute book of the company ; it contained a minute making a call in December, 1883. Mr Miller contended that as the minute was not signed it could not be accepted as evidence that the call was made.

The Bench held that further evidence, of a director, the legal manager, or some person who was present at the meeting should be given as to the call having been made.

Mr Lush undertook (o call Mr Comer, who was present at the meeting at which the call was made, and this was allowed by the Bench.

Mr Miller objected to the proceedings being taken in the Court, as the Act provided that all liquidation proceedings should be taken in the District Court; but this was overruled.

L. Melhose continued—He produced the share register of the company in which Mr Deeble was registered for 1250 shares, upon which a sum of £62 10s for calls remained unpaid.

To Mr Miller—The minutes showed that promoters shares were to be credited with the original sum paid by them, as against the call made. Mr Deeble had 500 shares on account of a promoter'a share, the balance, 750 shares, were transferred from other holders. There was no record of the amounts for the promoters' shares'of those transferring to Deeble having had calls paid on them. The register showed a transfer from Cook to Deeble of 500 shares, and Comer to Deeble W0 shares.

Hobert Comer deposed that he was a director of the Hobson Company. Deeble took a promoter's share. Was present at the meeting held in December. 1883, wlieu a call was uiaJe of uuts shilling per

Bhare ; credit was to be given on account of the call to the promoters, who had paid for their shares. There were seven directors, and three were present when the call was made. Cook had a promoter's share and paid £25 for it, this was the amount of a shilling call, therefore the shares should not be liable for any call. Never transferred 250 shares to Deeble. The original promoters of the company were to get 20 shares between them without paying for them, and stand on the same footing as those going in afterwards and paying £25 each.

Mr Miller addressed the Court, submitting that no notice had been given of the meeting of directors at which the call was made, and that all seven directors should have been present; also that due notice of the call made should have been advertised. On these three points he contended that no case had been made out against the defendant, and asked His Worship to grant a nonsuit.

Mr Lush, for the plaintiff, contended that a case had been made out.

His Worship said Mr Melhose, as liquidator, was in exactly the same position as the legal manager would be. He summed up the evidence at length, holding that the prima facie evidence adduced by the plaintiff as to the call being made was rebutted by the defence, and unless the plaintiffs were prepared to prove that each step had been taken in accordance with the Act, he must nonsuit the plaintiff. Mr Lush elected to take the latter alternative, and a nonsuit whs therefore entered against him, with costs £3 19s. Undefended Cases. J. M. Lush v. C. Manuell.—Claim, £5 9s, professional services.—Plaintiff deposed that his charges were reasonable, but defendant considered that his case (the illegal cutting of timber one) had been lost through the negligence of his solicitor.—His Worship informed defendant .that on those grounds he had no claim ; he should have applied for an adjournment of the case in order to gain the time required. The case had been decided, the costs were not excessive, and judgment would be given for the plaintiff with costs, 245.

Jackson v. Plummer.—Claim, £10 19s lid, goods. Judgment was given for the amount claimed, with costs.

[The Native Assessors, W. H. Taipari, and Wikiriwhi Hautonga, here took their seats on the Bench, Mr Anderton

acting as interpreter.] l Ruiha Mebimana v. Tamaha

Claim, £13 15s, for goods seized by the • plaintiff.—Mr Miller appeared for the plaintiff, and Mr Lush for defendant.

The case was brought to recover from defendant some clothes and other articles belonging to the plaintiff, who bad left her husband, the articles being ultimately taken charge of by the defendant. According to the Maori custom the goods could only be obtained on personal application either by the plaintiff or her father, and on the plaintiff applying the runanga would decide who was in the wrong in the causes leading to the separation of husband and wife, and the articles would be awarded accordingly.

After hearing the evidence, the Court adjourned for consultation after which it was announced that the Assessors were of opinion that the defendant was perfectly justified according to Maori custom, in taking charge of the clothes of the plaintiff and wearing them should she care to do so, until the reasons for plaintiff leaving her husband had been considered by the natives. The decision of the Court was that the clothes be given up to the plaintiff, each side to pay its own costs.

This was all the business.