A SHARE TRANSACTION.

Auckland Star, Volume XXXV, Issue 37, 12 February 1904, Page 2

A SHARE TRANSACTION.

■ Mr. H. W. Brabant, S.JVL, heard an interesting ease arising out of a share transaction yesterday afternoon, when Henry Lewis sued Lennox and Hull, sharebrokers, for £39 11/, the amount paid for 50 shares in the Talisman Consolidated Goldniining Company, qt £43 with interest to date. Mr. F. E7Baume represented the plaintiff and Mr. A. Blair (Mr. liaiina) the defendants. Henry A. Wright, accountant, en> ployed by the Talisman Goldmining Company, called on subpoena by the plaint ill', was asked to produce the share register, but said he could not. There were three attorneys in connection with the keeping of the sharelist, and the company's solicitor advised him that the}' could not singly produce it. His Worship: What are you to do? -Each produce a few sheets? Witness replied that he was acting on the advice of Mr. Hanna. Mr. Baume: "Who is the solicitor for the defendants?" He asked that His Worship should inform the witness about his position, and further questioned Mr. Wright respecting the attor* neys. The witness said that one was in England, and another spent most of his time in Karanguhake, while he was tlje third, and had charge of the register. His Worship said the power of attorney had nothing to do with it, and it was absurd to expect to bring a man from England to produce the book. He read the section of the Act under which Wright was ordered to produce all documents under penalty of £20 if he refused, and the witness said he had no objection to produce the register. Subsequently the book was produced, and witness said that Mr. Lennox held shares in the company, but no transfer to Mr. Lewis took place from September U to October 29. The plaintiff, Henry Lewis, said he did business with the defendants, and was told that Talismans were good as an investment us there would be a great boom hi them. Witness said he would only take a rish of 50 shares if they could be got at 15/9. Mr. Lennox said he would try, and next morning witness received a sale note and paid for the shares. He signed the document agreeing to take the shares, and received a receipt. The shares went up slowly in price to about 20/ C. and then began to decline. He asked Mr. Lennox to sell the shares at 18/, but decided not to sell upon the latters advice. Subsequently he inquired at the Talisman office what shares stood in his name, and he failed to get scrip for the parcel of 50. When Mr. Lennox was usked why the shares were not registered he said the clerk must have neglected to do so. He haa never given instructions for the shares to be held in the name of Mr. Lennox, and had he known that the latter had shares he would not have bought from him. In reply to Mr. Blair, witness said Mr. Lennox had never told him he could noc get the shares at 15/9 in Auckland, but would have to get them in London. He denied that he was now trying to get out of receiving the shares because they had gone down. Tie case was then adjourned until to~ day. When the hearing resumed this morning, Mr Blair opened the case for the defence, stating that the shares had always been ready for the plaintiff, and the only reason why he would not take them was that his name was not on the register. Mr Lewis was told that the shares were London ones, and in such a ease, dealing with foreign principals, Mr Lennox was a principal, and could not pretend to make a contract which would bind the principal and the person who originally owned the shares to complete the transaction. For the sake of convenience in getting London shares it was absolutely necessary to get them in his own name. They might ooine out in parcels of a thousand. Mr Lennox and other witnesses were called to bear out Mr Blair's statements, and also to deny that Mr Lewis received a transfer of the parcel of 50 shares soon after he paid for them. (Proceeding.)