RESIDENT MAGISTRATE'S COURT REEFTON.

Inangahua Times, Volume IV, Issue 49, 1 August 1877, Page 2

RESIDENT MAGISTRATE'S COURT REEFTON.

Tuesday, July 29, 1877. [Before Edward Shaw, Esq., E.MJ DUXJNKS. Two illustrious strangers, who, had beeu worshiping rather freely at the shrine of Bacchus were, discovered by Constable Jeffries throwing stones at the windows of v house in lower Broadway. They seemed to regard the appearance of that officer on the. scene, as an unwarrantable 'intrusion, and at first showed fight. But one or two well directed " cuffs " from the Herculean Jeff, sobered, them sufficiently to walk to the logs. On the cases being called the delinquents were fined, with, the usual alternative. ABUSIVE LANGUAGE. This was an action for abusive language The parties to it wore Courtney v. Waite, both residing at the Junction, on the Buller road.

Mr Pitt appeared for tbe plaintiff, and defendant appeared in person. Francis Courtney stated that he was a contractor on the Buller road. On tbe day in question defendant interfered with the workmen, and upon remonstrating with him he made use of the language charged. Cross-examined by defendant— l have no recollection of telling you that I would "make it hot for you." I did receive your summons before I took proceedings. By the Bench— My reason for delaying in taking out the summons was. because I diri not at first intend to take auy notice of the offence, but ultimately I feard that it might be repeated. I did not wish to come to Court, as I was very ] busy, and it is only to prevent a repetition. Charles Cook— On the 16th of July I was working on the Junction road for Courtney. I saw Waite there on that morning. He was in a great passion, and came and put a peg in. Courtney pulled the peg out and threw it into the river. Waite used very bad language, and I saw him give Courtney a piece of paper. He was very excited, and said that if I put a post in the ground he would cut it down. Cross-examined by defendant— l was standing about four or five yards away from you when you made use of the bad language. Hugh Taylor -I am a settler living near the Landing. Ou the day in question I was passing down the road, and saw a crowd of men gathered on the road and amongst them Courtney and Waite. Heard Waite make use of some of the bad language written on the paper produced, but not the whole of it. It is nob an unusual thing for the defendant to make use of bad language. Cross-examined by defendant—Courtney did say " Did you hear that, Mr Taylor," and I said that I had heard nothing, and rode on. I did not hear Courtney say he would " make it hot for you." This closed the case for the plaintiff. Defendant 3aid that he held a piece of land at the Junction, which he had occupied for years past. He had found it necessary to shift his house. Ou the day iv question plaintiff started to build a stable in such a position 39 would prevent him (defendant) from removing his house. Under the belief that his title to the land was good, and being excited, he may have said more than he couid recollect. His Worship in dfliVering jndgment said he was. sorry the ease had not b« i en taken (or bearing before the llesident Magistrate- of the district to which it properly belonged, as there was another case l-ctweeii &he parties pending in I lie Lyull Com I.1 '. imJ both cases should h>>ro beer* I-ieard. togetbei.. There was, how-, ever no defence io ths ctise before thCnu,rf. T-he law regarding tiio u,sp of abusive or obscene language in a jiiMic pi ice. was not intended to apply with ihe sarae stringency to offences committed in in an isolated place like the Lauding us U wouJd to offances committed in a hirtrp city. Defendant would be fined 5.i, and ordered to pay £1 12s costs. Mr Pitt applied also for tbe expenses, of two witnesses. His Worship declined to allow witness' expenses. He. said if plaintiff thought proper to bring witnesses twenty one miles, when there was a> Court within six miles, he had only Mmslf to blame. Mr Pitt said that the Lyell Court only sat monthly. His Worship^ refused the application* The Court then adjourned. KASSLER V. DEFIANCE COMPANY. This was an action to recover tbe sum of £20, damages for alleged 1 default of the company to register the plaintiff as the holder of forty allotted shares in (he company. Mr Staite appeared for the plaintiff and Mr Pitt for the defendant. Mr Staite in opening the case said 1 the fads were that in June last plaintiff purchased 100 shares in the company from S. Schulhof, and 100 from' a broker. Both lots of shares were purchased on a Saturday, and on the same evening the directors met and passed a resolution to make a distribution pro rata of all forfeited shares, at the rate of 40 to every 100 shares previously held. At tbi3 rate plaintiff became entitled to 80 of the al« lotted shares, but upon the plaintiff pre* aenting the transfer for registration, the manager refused to allot more than 40 of the distributed shares. Through this default on l,he part of the company the plaintiff had suffered damage to the amount claimed. Mr Pitt said he appeared to watch tbe interests of the company. He could not make an active defence, as in the absence of the manager ho had received no in« structions. His Worship : And why is Mr Davies not here : he is paid to look after the interest of the company, and his absence looks rather like neglect on his part. I may take this opportunity of remarking that the manager of the company has taken the very unusual and improper course of addressing a private communication to me setting forth what he cvi« dently conceives as reasons why he should not attend. Suoh communications I cannot take the least notice of. Inthe course of some further remarks his Worship expressed the opinion that the special meeting of shareholders- which had been called to confirm the allot*

ment by the directors was irregularly held, and it was very questionable'; whether ths whole allottment was not I bad in law. i Henry Kassler— -I am a bootmaker at Boatman's. On tbe 23rd June last I pur. chased 200 shares in tbo Defiance Company. The Defiance Company has made calls and I bare paid them. The transfers produced are signed by me, and represent 200 shares bought by me from S. Schulhoff. The first lofc were bought through Mr Bayfeild, and tbe other through Mr Schulhoff. It was about 7 o'clock or a little after that I purchased the shares from Schulhoff. Having received the transfers, I gare them to Mr Shaw to get them registered, and I have since paid calls on the shares, and for that reason knew that the shares were registered. I think the shares were registered on the following Monday. I heard that an allotment of shares had taken place. I was credited with 40 of the allotted shares upon the 100 shares, but on the other 100 shares no allotment was made. I asked Davies, the manager, why I had not been credited with eighty allotted shares, but could not get a satisfactory answer from him. I paid 7s for the shares, and the paper says they are now worth the same amount. They may have been sold for less than that. I can't tell whether I could have sold the shares for less than I paid for them. A. D'Tourette — The Defiance Company is registered under the Mining Companies Act. I produce the minute book of the proceedings of Directors. The minute of the 23rd June states that a resolution was carried allotting ccr f ain shares, h. special meeting of the shareholders was held on the 3rd July, when a resolution was passed confirming the action of the directors in allotting the shares. On the 3rd July Kassler was registered fo r 240 shares. I commenced to enter the allotted shares upon thß register on the Tuesday, and before the meeting of shareholders. I relied upon the shareholders confirming the action of the directors, I received Kassler's transfer at dinnertime on Mouday, and entered one of them on the register on tbe same day, , and the other on the following day. The numbers of the shares on one transfer were not shown. 100 of the shares had been sold by Larkins to Kassler, and Larkin3 called at the office and said that be had not sold the allotted shares. The transfer was not properly filled iD, as Sehuthoff's name appeared upon it as both seller and buyer. The reason that Larkins' transfer was not registered is Kassler's name was that Kassler clainvcF : to him; liouaht 140 shares, nnd Larkin9 contended tliat he find on?y sold 100' shares. There is nothing in-- the transfer flbout allotted share*. In the list of allotted shares made out l>y the director* Lark in wrs credited with the -10 allotted shares. The conclusion of our report will be furbished iv our next issue.