R. M. COURT.

Manawatu Standard, Volume 4, Issue 23, 7 September 1883, Page 2

R. M. COURT.

DFSDF

(Before R. Ward,; Esq.; ,ft.M.) ' ■

CIVIL cases. Palmerston North Brewery Cdmpy. v H. Wollerman. Messrs Perki'nT and Esam for plaintiffs, a'hfl; Messrs Ha W/ kins and Baker for' defendant. , This was an.action.Jaid^to^eobfe/ the" sJlShWes5 J lShWes m the. above. Company, £2 10s for ahot'menti.l: £2 \M forifirat call, and Jg2 10s for Wdnd' call. The witnesses ,ca,lj,ed qnr behal/jof [the/ plaintiffs 1 were Messrs T. King^Perlcins, Stubbs, and F. Jenssen; pn behalf of jthe, 3eieh6e<Meßß / rs Wollermani jß'itjL B'at^ chelor, and . |G. /M iller. / Counsel' tor plaintiffs sought to prove that-the defendant having signed the^r2fr^ahdumj of association, and, applied,' {for 5 shares was. liable for amount sued) for, although: ' he' repudiated any connection with the: x afterwar,ds >„.apdp had at all tirpes refused to, pay \ the -above amounts' ials" they 'became due. It wascjprbved- ' r that;" the defendant ,d,id sign the memor--1 andurn "of, association and: that he even took part m thief first meeting, allowing. ' himself to' be proposed, and seconded^' v director.; ; The deiience was that he had : bee^ri' persuaded by 6 Mir, and , Mi?; Wylie, the tern, to-take ' • shares Wfalse representation, m as much' astbey had led him, to Relieve that the' i !^hble : number. oLIjOOO^ shares would be J a'ilotted,.if tn'e ( P,aVmerß.or4; people csnbv , sbrioe%T^2oo, and,. that( ; he had repudi. 1 ated any^ connection with' ,t he Company 1 ] 'ab'soon .as'he heard that only !>500Bba r reß had 'been allotted ,and that the^ names of ' Messrs Bait, had ; nd right 1to f be put^pn the prospeotus in* the list? of provisional * 3 directory, asutbeyhaot : irWver gij^en any one.authprity to ma<e ' '"use of their names, a^d^had at once prfo--1 ''te/sted^gainst it. The counsel for the lieferice characterised' the.^vhole affair as if fr;aud.^ la supporjbj^of the defence ' seVeral celebrated law cases were quoted, , and, esppcjallyj must b^ mentioned,- one 1 rererred'tb iri the LawJoumalv ivojtttfie 50, page 269, and kßown_ajL£_Ander-" : isonV^aWT^vlz^P l^^^ Petroleum (3pv :y..;!Ajnder^on,' , ancT wpiclL, decided the judgement m favour of the defendant. r j Mr ,Sy*ard) iiristimming up said ! " I dn not think>/fthat the defendant, !Mr VVollerman,vis<; -exonerated from i his liability bybtfee fact rof his having repudiated any": connection with the Company j and Tefuniedl to^ -gay all demands onhim:jldrihotlthink-thatif Mr Wjylie had gjyeaipledgesl'which^were not jfulfilled,; tbe>; defendant could get jud&e---menttfnihiß, .favour 3 <b I think that the fact tof drily' soo iffiares instpad oi4J)00 being: iallottedy : ctih^assist him ■much:* but I'do think that 1 the 1 fact! >of jthert prospectus' j containing th'e v names j of : jtfwo;: gentlemen/ Ba'ttj and" jßatchelar, whose±names db ; not* appjear iri the share list and are not shareholders is. m • his favor. J udgrnerit ' s f6 r defend-' • an twit oncosts ; the: costs amounted to ;.£3v^hi- y^' ■■■■>■■■■■■*. hw |j : ., MrMr. EsanV gave' notice of" appeal jorttrie legal point on which judgement was . ... -- . ■?< •»■■ ~/.nn