DISTRICT COURT, REEFTON

Inangahua Times, Volume IX, Issue 1476, 28 November 1884, Page 2

DISTRICT COURT, REEFTON

(Before His Honor Judge Broad.

Wednesday, November 26th 1884. In the matter of the Mining Companies Act, and in the matter of the Lankey's Creek Company, (in liquidation.) Mr Lynch moved for the rectification of the share register of the Company by the removal therefrom of the name of Thomas Howarth, and the^ substitutiou in lieu thereof of the names of Robert Dick and Donald McNanghton Stuart, Dunedin, in respect of 750 shaifs in the Company. The defendants (Dick and Stewart), were not represented by counsel, and their names being called in the usual manner there was no appearance. The affidavit of Thomas Hawnrth Bet forth that he had sold the shares in question to Dick and Stewart Ion.? prior to the liquidation, and that th«y had since paid all calls due thereon and exercised ownership of same. There were no answering affidavits by Dick and Stewart. His Honor said at the last sitting of the Court the defendants had telegraphed that they had a good defence upon the merits, and asking for an adjournment to enable them to tile the necessary documents. The adjournment had been granted them, but defendants had done nothing since in th« matter. In this position, the affidavit of Haworth disclosing a bnnajide case, which there was no attempt to rebut, the order would be granted as prayed, and th« Liquidator would be instructed to omit the name of Thomas Howarth from the share register of the Company and the list of contributories, and to substitute the names of Bob»rt Dick and D. M. Stewart in respect of 750 shares, and two guineas costs would be allowed to applican . In the matter of the Lankey's Creek Company and William Watson. Mr Lynch moved on behalf of the defendant for the removal of William Watson's name from the register an i list of contributories in respect of 500 shares sold to Dick and Stewart. Th affidavits in support were similar to these filed in the former case, and being unanswered the order was mad « as prayed for the removal of Watson's name and the insertion of Dick and Stewart in the list of contributories as '• the. holders of five hundred shares. Two guineas costs were awarded Howarth for a similar reason to that in the last case. In the matter of the Lankey's Creek Company and Thomas Hunter. Mr Lynch moved for the removal of the name of Thomas Hunter from the list of contributors and the substitution in lieu thereof of those of Kennedy and Fenwick, in respect of 250 shares. The affidavit in support showed that Hunter had sold to Kennedy and that the latter had acknowledged the transaction and exercised ownership by payment of calls upon the shares. An affidavit had been filed by Kennedy setting forth that he had merely purchased the shares as agent for his late partner, in which capacity he had also paid the calls. His Honor did not regard the tetter affidavit as satisfactory. If there was an honest defence to the case upon the. merits the affidavit should have been more complete. There was only the baro assertion that Kennedy acted as agent for an undisclosed principal. On the other hand Hunters affidavit stated distinctly that he sold to Kennedy and Feawiek. Kennedy admits the pav--1 ment of the calls but claims to have done bo as agent for his latw partner. The order of the Court would be for the removal of the name of Thomas Hunter from the register and list of contributors and thu insertion thereof of Kennedy's name as the holder on 250 shares in that company. In the mattter of the Lankey's Creek Company (in liquidation) and T. Hunter, W. Hunter and William Watson, junr.. . . „.. Mr Lynch moved for the removal of William WataQn jnr's. name from th.-

list of contributories in respect of 100 shares and the insertion of those of * Hunter Bros, in lieu there 3f. Tlie application was undefended and the order was mado as praye !, but without costs. l In the same matter and Gooi'ge Feu c wick. ■ j Mr Lynch moved for the removal of George Feuwick's name from the list , of contributories in respect of 250 c shares in the company and the suhsti- f tution thereon of that of William Wat , son. ' j Thft applic iliou whs uncippos -cl-aud , the order was granted as prayed with < £1 Is costs. Kemblr v. Grose. I This was a similar application and being unopposed a similar order was .made. .:...'■/ ijaukey's Creek Company (iv liquidation.) Mr Menteath on behalf of the liqni dator moved for an order seitlir.ir the list of contributories. r : He said the whole of the applications pending igaiiiHt the list were itf>w di p o'-td of vnd Jlitt Jiqnutator *ivfl the crodiior> Wfte aninbiti to proceed with the realisation of the asset£}of the company he would ask His Btpn;or to make a similar order to thai, granted in the winding up of the Rsl<irat Company. His Honor said £1200 was the sum asked for by the liquidator to close the estate. Mr Hindmarsh said the amount stated included a large amount calls which were quite irrecoverable. His Honor said he would grant the order as prayed, and Mr Menteath might deal with it as he thought proper. In i.he matter of the Ballarat Company. Mr Meuteath on Ijffchalf of the liquidator asked whether the Court would grant a sum out of the assets to enable the liquidator to refund to certain .shareholders ca'ls which had been illegally demanded of them and paid. He understood that the Court had exp"t ssed an opinion in favor of the refund. His Honor said he had expressed an opinion that credit should be given for calls illegally made and paid, hut he could not see his way to deal with the matter iv the manner i now came before the Court. The.rr was no doubt a m«thod by which the share holders could so recover, but certainly could not entertain the application in its present form. Mr Menteath said he had merely I mentioned the matter at the request of the liquidator, and quite co icurred in the remarks which had fallen from the Bench. Okientjvl Company v. Michael , ■ * O'Deiscoll. i Mr Menteath on behalf of defendant moved for an order . to rectify the share 1 register of the company, by'removing therefrom the name of Michael O'Dris f coll and the substitution in lieu thtieof . of that of Thomas Haworth as the ) holder of 250 shares in the company. 1 At the last sitting of the Magistrates > Court, Reef ton, the company obtained . a judgement against O'Driseoll for £6 - 5s for calls on the shares in question , , application was subsequently made for t a stay of execution pending the present application, but this had been refused , and O'Driacoll now moved that his , name might be. erased from the shar« register of the company. 1 The affidavit of Thomas Howarth, r of Dunedin, was put in and showed i that he sold the shares to one Oratio : Massey on half commission, and had ) nothing further to do with the transaction. > tion. Mr Menteath said that both Gage and O'Driseoll had been led to believe that Howarth bought on his own ( account. { His Honor thought that Gage should have an opportunity of answering the I affidavit filed. Mr Menteath contened that it was ( quiet immaterial whether Howarth I purchased for himself or as a broker, as by not disclosing his principal he had virtually rendered himself liable I to be treated as the buye.i. His Honor said he would like to have, some oral evidence ou the subject. It j would be better to allow the case stand . adjourned to the next sitting so that the parties could appear personally. Mr Menteath inquired whether it . would not be sufficient for O'Driseoll to file a supplementary affidavit. His Honor said that if O'Driseoll I wished to prove his case it would be better for him to attend personally and equally, if Howarth wished to escape ' the liability it was obviously his in- [ terest to take the best course of doing ' so. The case was ordered to stand over till the next sitting of the Court, iv order to enable the parties to tender further evidence, either orally or by affidavit, as they thought fit. Hunger! oud v. Impeuial Co. i An application for the removal of 1 plaintiffs name from the. register of i the company in respect of shares 1 therein, and the sunstitution of that of i Thomas Grose. The affidavit of plain- » tiff set forth that Grose was the owner of the shares and had admitted the lia bility. 1 Mr Menteath said the contention of Grose was that he merely purchased ! the shares as agent .for Stuart; that the latter was the owner, and Grose had merely paid the. calls as agent, for, i ; Stuart; further that the. trausfer was' " ' uot from Hungerford, but was, in ' blank. His Honor: Then the contention will probably be that the transfer being iv blank is to be. treated as a nullity, and that the case is one for a penalty. Mr Lynch pointetlout that they were now goingaltog,ether ou bare assertion. "She facts" were that Hungerford trans-" f erred through Gage 'to' Grose.

Th« case was then adjourned to the 1: next sitting of the Court. I Re Fbaxcis Hampson. Mr Lynch moved for probate .if thwill of Francis Hampton, livery-st • c , x keeper, Reetton, d-c-as d, a-id po'' duced the will. The will h tviug been drawn by the deceased. I ' His Honor having read the ii.v--i ; , ment said there <liil not seem to b ■■ -'v, doubt about two of tin; Ex-r.un-s appointed, but as to the third i 1 v < . not so clivir. Tin? re. wmiM probably be a di:-!i'-nli y a- t.o tin- id- ntirtiM' ;v't of "The R< •<;!,!■);■ lif t,h: Parish " a -;d | , " Parish Priest." Mr Lynch said hv? ha I>m afFH . . ' , from R-.-v. Fitluir R/' i 1 ■■•■ t : -i ■■;■■■■ ' that at the time mentioned i;i ; hc >vi I he f Father Holland) was and sti!' is the , "Rector of the P iris' 1 " and "PirHi | ; Priest " His r lonor sii.l >v. in p.-c-tant qne*« tion arose as to the b qu-sr, ti! icier fch:^ will, and it might, be a case in which it j would be ad visible to ; i]>!>!y to the Supreme Court for direction. Mr Lynch concurred, and said that i course would lie followed. | The Probate w,is then granted to j the three executors. j