THE UNION CLUB CASE.

Wairarapa Daily Times, Volume 4, Issue 1095, 9 June 1882, Page 3

THE UNION CLUB CASE.

tho,New Zealand Times.)

flis Worship delivered judgment in the folloiti««<ues:—

Stevomon and Smith v. Dalrymple and Othera, Stewards of the Union Club at Masterton, claim £72. —His Worship jjaid . In this action, for goods sold and delivered, and in which defendants are sued as Committeemen of tho MHorton Union Club, the supply of thu >,< >-\\ is undisputed ; the only question is, who is legally liable J Two of the defendants may be at once dismissed. Mr Perry never was a Committeeman. MrWilliamshas been discharged by bankruptcy. The evidence which plaintiffs' now bring to'show Mr Moore's liability is that of the custodian, who says tlmt Mr Moore was a trustee; and he thinks that trustees were, ex officio, Committeemen. He swears that he was asked to he one, but declined. It is shown that he never acted .as ono. Mr Stephenson, one of the plaintiffs, swears that both Krull and Moore were trustees, but the plaintiffs do not sue Krull. On this evidence I think Mr Moore is not proved liable, As to Mr Girdleaione, the only evidence that plaintiffs have brought is that he was Secretary for part of the time during which this account was incurred, that'he attended the Committee as a paid, officer, and did not vote, I think his liability is not shown. Ab to Mr Payton, the evidence to charge .him is that he was at one time' a Committeeman—certainly for. one. quarter, and the witness thinks he may have been for two, and that this' woj about the middle of the period during which the debt was incurred. That period was from' the 16th' of August, 1879, to tho beginning of January, 1881. A document put in by plaintiffs'shows that in October,-. 1880, and -subsequently; Payton was Auditor and not Committeeman. The quarterly' meetings 'seem to have .been held early in January, April, July, and Ootober. I think this .testimony only definite enough to show that Mr Payton was on the Committee for one garter, and. that nearest to the middle of the period would be from April to July, 1880. Turning no-v to the account: There was no special appropriation of the sums paid .to any particular itemß, and, failing that, •they go to discharge the earlier part. Rflference will show> that evirything in..curred before the 14th July, 1880, has teen paid, Thus, if Mr Payton ceased to be a Committeeman at the quarterly meeting earlyin July, 1880, nothing now ' remains unpaid for which he was liable, and with such vague evidence,. in older to charge him, he must be unmistakably within its limits.' Ido not think plaintiffs can find against him. Messrs Dalrymple-and Chinchen stand in a different position. Mr Dalrymple is shown to have been President of the Club and Chairman of the Committee,.and to have •noted'as such during the whole time. Mr -Chinchen'sown evidenco shows that he ps Treasurer and Committeeman from the beginning until Mr Sbllav was ap. jointed liquidator. ''Judgment must go , for. plaintiff against those two defendants;