TRANSACTIONS IN SHARES.

Auckland Star, Volume XXXVII, Issue 177, 26 July 1906, Page 3

TRANSACTIONS IN SHARES.

AN IMPOKEANT POTST &AISED. CBy Teiegtajh,—Own Correspoadent.) WAIHI, this day. A case of some importance to sharebrokers came before Mr R." S. Bush, at theMagistrate's Court yesterday, in which C. J ; launders claimed to recover from C- J- A. (rrahain, sharebroker, £147 on various share transactions, extending over a considerable time, ami including large amonnts. M.r ilueller apeared. for the plaintiir. Mr Jackson said he wished to raise as a preliminary point the question of the Court's jurisdiction. He sahmi-tted that the Court had no jurisdiction, as tne case waa a claim ior the balance due on large transactions i- i }-^ s ne «ssary to bring it within the jurisdiction of the Court. It was for tCe plaintiff to show that it came within the of sub-section B of section 30, of the Magistrates Court Act. Mr Jackson went on to argue that the claim -vsaa clear'y not the original amount of the debt, nor ■was it a balance after allowing payment oil account It could not be brought within the jurisdiction of the Court under the heading of credit for goods supplied, beeanse shares were not goods within the meaning of the Act. In support of this conientioa, h e -emoted several cases. n Mr * 3 J B 5 repl:sr <*>ntended that the court Had jurisdiction, beeanse the credits given were for cash paid and goods supplied. He argued that shares were goods within the meaning of Sale of Goods Act as they were chattels personal, and neither money nor a taing in action. He contended that there was no necessity for defendant to have admitted the set off, as a set off was for a liquidated amount and even if it were held that it ivas necessary for defendant to have admitted the set off, n"e argued that defendant had so admitted it V c< > n tainerl in statwnerrts sent by defendant to plaintiff, which he could produce to the Coart, and from which tne figures of the set off had bene copied. He also argued that the point had been raised by defendant to gain time as he had given notice to apply for an adjournment The Magistrate said that the question of Jurisdiction had never been raised before him since the Act was passed. The purpose j of the Act, as he understood was to get over the difficulty experienced prior to the Act being passed, where a person could not bnnj an action for a balance of an account. He had been under the impression that the section was made to get over that .difficulty wherever the actual amount claimed was under £200. As the original transaction involved a large amount he was not cleax as to whether he liad 'jurisdiction. and he would like time to look into it, us tni? matter was of some importance. He would therefore adjourn the case till next Court day, to enahle him to look into it ihe following case also came before the magistrate: Valentine Curran y c. J A. (ir i^ m '*^ afan £65 ref und on moneys paid by the plaintiff to defendant for purchase of shares. Mr Fitzherbert who appeared for plaintiff, applied for substitution service, as tho bailiff had been unat>le to serve the summons personally, owing to the absence of defendant In Auckland. The Magistrate granted the application, provided that affidavits from the bailiff and counsel as to their inability to'serve summons were granted. ~ .„,,,,...»,