Untitled

Inangahua Times, Volume III, Issue 217, 17 January 1877, Page 2

We are compelled to hold over the con» eluding portion of our report of yesterday's sitting of the District Court, which will, however appear in fullsin out next issue. The case of Williams v.Shaw was dismissed with costs. It will be obaeKved that the time for sen& ing in tenders for the supply of timber to the Energetic Company has been extended to Saturday next, 20th instant.. Bishop Redwood has intimated his intent tion of visiting this portion of bis diaoeae early in the month of March next. We are informed that it is the intention of the Beefton amateurs to give an entertainment at an early date in aid of the unfortunate man George Ja^ues, who some months ago was wholly bereft of sight by an accident in the Energetic mine. The asuisment of all rateable property within the County has. we leant, been completed, and the roll for the current year will belaid upon the Council table at the next sitting of that body, which will be held on Thursday next, | The ca«e of William* v.Shaw and Neville was commenced in the District Court, on ! Monday morning. Oa the cau.se being caUed on bis Honor enquired whether the case was 1 one for a jury. Mr Pitt, who acted for the defence, thought not. The matter in issue turned mainly upon points of law, and that being bo, he thought it better that the case should be taken singly. Mr Staite, who appeared for the plaintiff, said that he was qnlte prepared to let the hearing go in either form. 'She question of summoning a jury bad been under consideration, hut as the other tide now objected, he would not press it. He was quite content to let the case go as it stood. His Honor said that the matter was one fox counsel to suggest. For bis own part he was always glad to have the assistance of a jury in oases where it was thought desirable in the interest of the parties at is* sue. However, as it was agreed that the Court should take the case alone, it would proceed in that form. Mr Sfeujto then proceeded to. open the case for the plaintiff, The action was to recover £200 damages, lor- al* leged false imprisonment. Having reviewed the case, the whole circumstances of which will be recollected by our readers, he called several witnesses, and finally the hearing was adjourned until the following, (yesterday) morning. We aye sorry to leant that the body of young Singer, who was drowned in the Toremakau on lhursday last, has not yet been recovered, though a careful search has been kept up. The unfortunate occurrence created a most painful sensation at Kumara, where the deceased was well known, and the greatest sympathy is expressed. In a paragraph referring to the accident in our last issue, the word "deceased" was, unfortu* nately typed " aooused )" the mislake, it is quite unnecessary to add was purely inadvertent. We sometimes eat too much. Appetite occasionally outruns discretion and the consequence is a fit of indigestion which may lay the foundation of future wretchedness in the shape of chronic dyspepsia. A« a means of counteracting the effects of overeating, and, if used persistently, of completely eradicating the last named malady, there is none more certain and agreeable than that admirable anti-dyspeptic and after-dinner cordial, TJdowho Woxitm BmttoiM Aaommc SOHKAtfi. '

DISTRICT COURT, BEEFTON. TtJESDAT, jANtXABY X6th, 187?. t j Before His Honor Judge Weston.) d B^ S|B JULIITS VOGBL COMPANT ({N 0 L|(I)UII>AMON.) Mr Pitt moved, upon the affidavit of \\ Villiom M'Lean, the Liqaidator, for an b rdev settling the list of contributories. 0 Mr Staite appeared to oppose the aa- t ilication on behalf of several of the share- ? lolders, namely, Messrs Bayfeild, Co*tes, p )avies, Ching, and Stsite. j His Honor suggested that the oases r hould be heard singly, and the objection l if Mr Bayfield was taken first. s Mr Staite proceeded to read the affi* 1 lavit of Arthur D'Oyley Bayfield, the ] ngredients of which he said were as t olloivs i That on the 4th May last Bay- t iold sold to Andrew M'Shain, that the | ] lale was a genuine one, The reasons for i \Lt Bayfeild transferring being that there ] vere circumstances connected with the s ihen management of the company with \ irhieh be was dissatisfied. The wording 1 >f the affidavit ran, " That I sold 500 \ ihares in the Sir Julius Yogel Company < to Andrew M'Shain, and that the transfer iras duly executed. That the sum of 5s was paid to me by M'Shain in consideration thereof. That the transfer was ham fide, mi the sale was an out and out one. That the transfer was duly effected on the books of the stid company. That previous to such transfer all calls then due upon the shares were paid by me. Mr Mr Staite continued that Mr Bayfeild subsequently saw a statement in the possession of the Liquidator in which it was stated that said Andrew M'Shain had de« clared that he had accepted certain shares as a dummy, and that upon his (Bayfeild's) asking the Liquidator to whom the declaration spoken of referred to, the Liquidator stated that the reference was to him (Bayfield). He (Mr Staite) proceeded to read the affidavit of Andrew M'Sbain, which set forth that paragraphs 1, 2, and 3 of Mr Bayfeild's affidavit were true, That the reference to " dummies" referred only to certain shares belonging to one William Cummins, the transfer of which bad been made some weeks subsequent to that of Mr Bayfeild. Mr Pitt said that he was not in a position to rebut questions of fae f , He had had no opportunity of seeing the affidavits. He should like to have an opportunity of examining the legal manager of the company, Mr Davies, who, he understood, was absent from Beefton. He would therefore ask for an adjournment in order to enable this to be done. Mr Staite pointed out the hardship of such a course. Some of his clients had came from Greymouth and others from Hampdea, and it would be a very great inconvenience to them to. have to, make another visit; to Beefton, His Honor said that he was not disposed to put oiff.tbe case for three monlbs. It was the duty of those requiring tbe attendance of the legal manager to see that he was in, attendance. The case would be adjourned until Thursday morning, and ia the meantime steps to be taken to secure the attendance of the legal manager. Mr Staite applied for costs. His Honor said that the question of costs would stand over until the case had been finally disposed of. In the mate* of the Sir Julius Yogel Company (in Liquidation). Mr Pitt moved as ia the above case Tor an order settling the list of contributorie*. MV Staite appeared for W. J, Ooates, of Greymottth t to oppose the application. Mr Staite proceeded to read the affidavit of M* Coates, which set forth " That the transfer of 1000 shares in the said company from me to one Don Pedro Anderson, which is alleged to be signed by me, is dated 12th February, while the date of registration iv the books of the company purports to be, the 21st January, being 21 days, prior to such alleged transfer, That I never at any time ordered nor agreed to take any shares in the said company, and gave no authority to any person to register me as a shareholder. That I hare not been treated or recog*nised as a shareholder, not having received any notice of calls or toeetingVfrotntbe manager. That at the request of Davies. I signed a transfer innocently thinking that the company might have regarded me as a shareholder. That I attended a preliminary meeting of the shareholders of the said company also at the request of Davies, but took no part in the proceedings, and did not vote. That I never signed the articles of association of the said company. That my name is not upon the register of the said company. Mr Staite said if it was necessary he was prepared to produce Anderson to prove that he knew nothing whatever of the transaction. His Honors Is it set up thai the company took upon itself to execute the trans* fer without authority from the parties. " Mr Staite said that the transfer purported to be from Anderson to Coates, when, in fact, both denied knowledge of the transaction. His Honor : But Mr Ooatea appears to hare lent his name to the company, and it could hardly be disguised that if the undertaking had proved successful he would possibly have put in his claim. Ht Staite said he should like to put Mr Coates in the box in order to disclose the transaction.

His Honor said if be consented to such coarse it would be clearly understood tiat it should opt be regarded as a prece* pi ent. pi Mr Staite said he wonld bear that in ci lind, aj William John Coates : lam a merchant, iving in Greymoutb. The affidavit filed b iy me is true in every particular, The p ircumstances under which I signed the b ransfer referred to were as follows :— I » ras in Reefton aboat the time the com- 2 iany was formed, 30th Norember. I was d nvite4 by Da? ies to attend a preliminary S neeting of shareholders to see what they tl iad to say about floating the company. I si ittended the meeting. I was not a share- . p lolder. I was a shareholder in the old t [nvineible, but the ground was jumped by I ihe new company, Nothing transpired t it the meeting which concerned me, and t C made up my mind to have nothing to do with the company, and I walked out, ( Davies frequently orged me to purchase a i jhare in the company, He wanted me to 1 tfve him £5 for one of Anderson's shares, but I refused to hare anything tahio wi*h i it. I never at any time agreed to become a shareholder in the company. Davies 1 forwarded me a transfer form, and re- I quested me to sign it, I thought that the : company had made me a shareholder, and i I signed the transfer to get dear of it. Since I arrived in Beeftou have had a conversation with D, P. Anderson. He said to me that he did not know how I had become a shareholder. He said he had never sold me any shares. I never sold Anderson any shares. The meeting was held at Davies's office, and Davies was, I think, in the chair. He acted as legal manager of the claim, I never con« sideredthat I had the least interest in the oompany. If it had turned out a million of money I should never have ex» expeoted Is. Cross-examined t Never knew that I had any share in the company. The reason I attended the meeting wasbe« cause Davies urged, me to do so. It was not becaqse I attended the meeting that I signed the transfer. Never knew till I came to Reefton this time tfeat my name was taken down on the minutes of the meeting referred to, I will swear that I was not present at an adjournment of that meeting. Never knew that my name was advertised in the Inangahua Herald in the articles of association. Never saw the advertisement referred to, Will swear that I never knew my name was advertised in that paper. This was all the evidence Mr Staite d«« sired to tender, His Honor said that after what had been said it would be very desirable that the evidenoe of the legal manager should betaken. The case was in some respects a singular one, Mr Coates's name was upon the memorial as the largest share* holder, which prima facie was with his knowledge, He signed a transfer which prima facie was evidence against him. His name was upon the minntes of the shareholders meeting, which was also .prima faoie evidence against him. The statement he has made, however, appears to me to be consistent, and therefore I am constrained to adjourn the case for the attendance of the legal manager, The Court has a responsible duty to perform, in seeing first that the names of persons are not improperly upon the register} secondly, that those liable to he placed thereon do not escape t and lastly, that the interests of creditors are duly pre* served, Under these oircumstanees I ! cannot do otherwise than adjourn this 1 case in order that the facts may be fally I cleared up. I must say that the attendance of the legal manager should have been secured. However, in order to allow that to be done the case will stand adjourned until Thursday, in the mean* time steps to be taken to secure Mr Davies's attendance, In the matter of the Sir Julius Yogel Company (in Liquidation). Mr Pitt moved as above for an order settling the list of contributories, Mr Staite appeared to oppose on behalf of John Ching, He moved upon the special ground that Mr Ching having sold ontbona fide and his transfer having heen accepted by the oompany, he was no longer liable, He read the affidavit of John Ching, which set forth, " That 'on the 6th May I sold to one George Escort 1000 shares in the Sir Julius Yogel com* pany for the sum of 20s. That the transfer was flnly signed and registered with the company. That the manager accepted such transfer prior to which all calls were paid. That the sale was bona fide. That at the same time I transferred 250 shares in the Defiance Company, for which I received the sum of 20s. That at the time of such transfers the prospects of both companies were good. That there were matters connected with the management which induced me to self. John Ching, examined, said : I know George Escott. I believe he is at Eumata. I sold him some shares in the Sir- Julius Yogel and Defiance eompae nres, Could not say whether the price I obtained for them was below their value. Did not think so at the time. Escott at the time was working for Ching Bros. He paid me £1 for the Defiance shares, and £1 for the shares in the Sir Julius Yogel Company, He went to the Kumara rush. At this stage of the proceedings his Honor said he would ad|ourn the Court until 10.30 on the following morning, in order that fuller particulars might be forthcoming, ' %

WILttAMS V. SHAW. | h This case which had been heard on the h revious day and adjourned to enable c laintifiTs caunsel to decide upon the pre- 'p se grounds upon which he relied, was 8 gain called on. C Mr Staite said that the case having I een adjourned to enable him to state cc- t licitly the facts upon which he relied, he ad prepared them for submission. He i ested his case upon three points. First : ?hat the various acts of the defendant in* icated malice in the legal acceptation ; lecond t That if the defendant defends he action in his magisterial capacity, it hould have been so set forth on the leadings; and lastly, that the realitiesion was as to false imprisonment, sach >eing indicated amongst other things by he absence of the warrant and want of ■easonable and probable cause. Mr Pitt wished to know whether the 3onrt was to rule that the absence of the warrant constituted reasonable and pro bable cause, Mr Staite said that would be an element in the allegation* His Honor $ Before we proceed, Mr Staite, let me ask you : assuming thai Mr Shaw was warranted in binding over this man, and assuming that he sent this man to gaol without a warrant ; does the absence of the warrant cast any obligation upon the defendant ? That seems to me to be the pith and marrow of the whole case ? Mr Staite submitted that it did oast an obligation upon the defendant, and it was a strong argument in bis (Mr Staite's) favor that no justification had been set up that defendant had acted in his magisterial capacity, His Honor : Assuming everything to have been done correctly, would the absence of the warrant be a sufficient ouster P Mr Staite would refer to section 93 of the " Justice of the Peace Act." It was there laid down "If a defendant should refuse, or be unable to provide securieties it shall be lawful for the Justice to issue a warrant/ The authority went further to say that the warrant must be in writing, and that a verbal authority would not justify a man's retention longer than was necessary to make out the warrant. The warrant was a precept directed to the keeper of the gaol. In this case the sergeant acted under the influence of Mr Shaw, His Honor i in that case would not an action for false imprisonment rather He against the keeper of the gaol ? Mr Staite contended that the action would lie against both parties. , His Honor -. But in this case the magis* i trate had the right to commit upon the authorities. The question is, whether in the absence of the warrant is hs liable. Mr Staite submitted that a person authorising an arrest, was responsible unless he could justify the sot. In this case no justification had been set up. His Honor : The action is tantamount to the setting aside of a warrast. Mr Staite submitted that the position was a much better one, as in the present instance there was no warrant to set aside. His Honor: There must be some in* terval between the committment and the preparation of the warrant, Mr Staite contended that until the ! warrant was signed the constable had no right to interfere. His Honor said that until the case had commenced he had not the slightest knowledge of the facts involved. He could not, however, help coming to the conclusion during the progress of the case that it would have simplified matters very much if the allegations of malice in the declaration had been treated as surplus* age, and the issue narrowed down to the count of fake imprisonment. Will you tell me upon what section of the Act you #ely? Mr Staite said that he relied upon section 4.