RESIDENT MAGISTRATE COURT.

Westport Times, Volume V, Issue 845, 3 August 1871, Page 2

RESIDENT MAGISTRATE COURT.

Tuesday, August 1. (Before J. Giles, Esq., E.M.) A renewal of publican's license was granted to Thomas Jones* for the Bridge Hotel, and a transfer to M. Steel from the Buller Hotel to the Great North Lead Hotel, Gladstonestreet. The license to Jones was granted at half price. crviii CASES. Braithwaito v. Rodden. —Claim for £SO 16s 9d, for goods supplied. Mr Pitt for plaintiff, and Mr Home for defendant. Adjourned until Friday, the 4th

instant, for the plaintiff to produce books. Brunn v. Freeman.—Claim for £25 18s 6d, for goods supplied. Judgment for the blaintiff by default in the amount claimed and costs. Corr v. Osterland.—Claim for £2 12s Bd. No appearance Struck out. "Williams v. Aunett.—Claim for £1 5s Gd. Judgment by default in the amount claimed and costs. Butler v. M'Laughlin.—Claim for £1 17s lOd. Judgment by default in the amount claimed and costs. M'Farlane v. King,—This was an action to recover possession of a shop and outbuildings in Gladstone-street, at present occupied by the defendant, and £l2 10s for the use of the said premises. Mr Home for the plaintiff, and the defendant did not apoear. His Worship gave judgment for the plaintiff for £(3 5s and costs, and ordered that the premises be given up in fourteen days. Freeman v. Brunn.—Glaim for £52 lls6d, being £2 lis 6d, the value of goods retained by the defendant, and £SO damage caused by such detention. Mr Home for the plaintiff. His Worship gave judgment for the plaintiff. The goods to be returned forthwith, or the defendant to pay the sum of £2 lis 6d and costs. The sum of 5s was allowed for damages. Excelsior Ouartz Mining Company v. Lavette.—This was a claim for £8 for calls.

Mr Home appeared for the plaintiff, and Mr Pitt defended. David Leslie, legal manager of the company was examined. He stated that the directors were appointed at an extraordinary meeting of the shareholders, held on December 15, 1870. Witness was appointed manager at that meeting. He produced an authority to sue, also the register of shareholders, which contained the name of the defendant as the holder of two shares. Defendant had paid the first call, but refused to pay any other calls, stating that he wished to abandon the shares. An application for shares, signed by the defendant, was put in. By Mr Pitt: There is no deed of association in the company, nor are there any rules or regulations passed at a general meeting for its direction. The directors advanced £4OO to the Alpine Quartz Mining company, being payment in advance for the crushing of 800 tons of quartz on behalf of the company at 10s per ton. The quartz is not yet raised. The Alpine company are now prepared to commence crushing operations. The calls were authorised at meetings of the directors.

John Munro gave evidence corroborative of the previous witness as to the circumstances under which £4OO was lent to the Alpine Quartz Mining Company, Mr Pitt then moved for a non-suit. He said that the line of examination adopted by him would indicate to the court that, for a substantial defence to the action, he would rely upon the conduct of the directors as relieving the defendant, the loan to the Alpine company being, as he contended, ultra vires. But leaving that question aside for the present he contended for a nonsuit on the following grounds :—l, That plaintiff had failed to prove that the defendant was a shareholder. 2. That the appointment of directors was not proved, because it was not shewn that the requirements of sees. 24 and 27 of the Mining Companies Limited Liability Act, 1865, had been complied with. 3. That the directors could not make a call, the Act not giving any such power, and the company being without deed of association and without any regulations framed under sec. 40 of the Act. Mr Pitt argued those points at considerable length, citing various authorities in support of his contention.

Mr Home, on the other side, replied, contending that the Mining Companies Apt was designed for miners alone, without reference to any other Act, and that it was not imperative that a company registered under that Act should have a deed of association or special rules and regulations. It was intended that the operation of bringing a company uuder the Act, and its subsequent working, should be as simple and inexpensive as possible. He should contend also that the power of the directors to make a call was suffi iently provided by the Act. His Worship reserved his decision until Friday. It was agreed that a similar claim against James Simpson should abide the decision in the previous case.