MONEY IN MANURES.

Auckland Star, Volume XLV, Issue 126, 28 May 1914, Page 6

MONEY IN MANURES.

I AUCKLANDER'S SPECULATION. j AN F.N'Tlt IN'C INVESTMENT.^ j sit-;- 1--1 ip, MOSEY BACK. j I An interesting claim, arising out ol the notation of a local company wa. Ilma-rd in the Auckland Supreme Cour ito-dav. before his. Honor Mr. .Justice i Stringer. The plaintiff was .Yilliu.m I Dall.m. of Auckland, who eucj .Manures. : Ltd.. and it- directors (.lames Samuel j Dixon. .Villi_.ui Alfred Taylor, .lames j Cart side Culpan. and lohn koitntreoi for the recovery of with interest, being application and at Hot null t money in res.poet of shares in Manures, ljtd. Dr. P.amford w.i- for tbe plaintiff, and "Mr. MoVcagh and Mr. ll.Skelton defended. It was admitted, said Dr. Bamford. that the company went hno allotment when it was never in a position t<» do so. and except for certain features of t.li,. <jse. probably no defence would hav-p ho,-,, raised. Manures. Ud„ continued Dr. P.amford. was a company promoted mainly iiv Mr. H. .1. Tirernau. insimifacturing ciiomis:. who took an active part in its Hotalion. The pr.Kpoctns was signed by Ihe directors and filed in the Registrar's ofiice on October 14. I_.ll. AIIIOIU ihjt period, which was before the couipany was incorporated, plain! iff was in lunch with a Mt. Stephen Hughes, ;■ broker, whom he was consulting with regard I" the investment of moneys, anil th.i.t gentleman i-'howed him the prnspoc tus. expatiating upon the virtues, of the company. Plaintiff refused at the time 10 take up share-, but later Mr. Hughes introduced him to Mr. Tireman and ulti mately he agreed to lend Tireman the sum of 12025. A_. security the plaintiff was to apply for _._<l_ shares in the company, and was to pay the .__.;•_._ as application and allotment money. I n one >en-e the money wu.., : , ),„,„ t 0 Tireman I'M. it was a loan for the purposes of I li« company. S1IAP.BI) THK P.i:oKl-7nA<;[-_ The money _•_„ p.,i.| ow . r t „ a ( . |( , rk named ( __y _. the ofiice of (Mr William Dray, the interim se,-retary of Ih,. com R".i. and :U . Huphc.' r_q„e.st ,wo L,d l ','__ w ,T r " nt,d " ,n,t ' """ U,r -^on, -._ in T _ I '° r ,2 •" , • tV ***** "P^ ..__ 7w . ?* u h " Kmallor < - h «1'"«'----r-uh.1 , UiTU !" d Wk X " ]h, - wa_ Vor_l . _ Th " " lon<> - v dindetl. The between the plaintiff and the compiinv wa, not ..i-m,.! until November • • It w.,,,11 be proved that the _C" vs re,.•„-.,, Uytiray am] IK , . > U T.^_ >Unt,n th " >'"'•" nan, W of<irav : J l™'| ''''j" "Vraordinary thin^ lie lin V 'I'"'' :h " !' r *P«'tus wa_ hi A n Novembei. |»||. thfl pnm »J» „. mcorpomted until .lanuarv 17. ' ; '-" ,*" . »"*"UJ* the directors ' had s. n_,] t ,, P ~W [wllL< an ., . mi( . |pri th ,, v haii t(tk ilh soluWr no interest j„ till . Inaa ,, r , |(> ~i r '""•t.llg had 1,,.,.,, !„| d . aild t ,„, , , IJimg was a110w,.! t „ ~r ift. rn| "'Uld .how , hat they had take n reasonable s ~,_. t,, ascertain what was he'„_ U"n„ „y ih- money pl_ lo ed wntli t liei7 -e.Tot_i.ry. contended Dr. lUn_ford the [da,,,;, 1, „a_ entitled to iudgment against he company at. all events, and agajnst ,]efe„.l.,,„.s nnless ,' ov tWIIH I conc-lusiv-e-ly .siLtlsly Ihc Court that they I Had acted \i\ ;i hiuine • l;t„ .„ 1 I sinc-..-iike and proper ■ manner. ' ' j I'Vmal evidences I„ ;.!,.. registration " the .•..inp.iny wa* then -Ken. and Ihe pl._jnt.rr bore ,„„ counsel's ~>,_-ning statemen,. Ki.p'yi,,., t „ , ho ~„,„,_ hp mM that the rale 01 ,i,ier,-t was fixed at 10 PC -cut for the mi days, and wa* in addition t, !,.- -hare of the brokerage money. Ihc Judge: T<_> pr.lita.l.l ft ;_ be sound. I --'IMllld .-.IV. Dr. Bamford I to plaintiff): The prospectus wa.- very glowing, wasn't j, -• l-aiirtiff: It w-a-. I'laintiir ,0 „f the no_ot.a.i...ns which followed, and mentioucd that in one letter the secretary stated Uiat the assets would shortly be -old, and al] claims probably satisfied Reph'ing to Mr. witness denied that the reason why he had not sued Tyerman was that that gentleman had nothing. TDK _TX'.P.I'.TAI_Y'S EVIDENCE. William Cray, cutnpanv secretary. of ; Auckland, said he did not know that his office was the registered office of the company. The oheoue for £..00 which was reoerved by Casey, was handed to him the following day. When he consulted Tyerman ajiout it the latter sajd that he (witness) and De Renzy had better pay it into their account, as he did nut possess one. and he could then draw upon it Irom time to time.. At the time wiiness did not know that DaJtou had tilled in an application for allures, and even had lie possessed the knowli.lge h- would still have looked upon the c.-.(io a> a loan to Tverman. as he knew that that gentleman was negotiating for a loan of that amount, llu could not say whether or not the cheque was made payable to '.V. Cray. -Manure- l,td." The cheque was paid into the trust account held by De Keu/y an.l himself, and he looked upon the money as !»• longing to Tyerman. I'asi-y had no authority lo pnv commission on shares which were never al- : lotted. Witness admitted that, on the application for shares il was mentioned that a elienne for £(>25 wa.s enclosed, I but tiiis .lid not cause him to make inquiries. W'h.-u the company was incorporated tho sum of 25/ had been paid in connection with app'ication- for shares. iiej/lyincr to I lie judge, witness said tiiat he thought that the mention of the £0-25 cheque in the application was merely formal, and that the application was merely by way of extra security for the loan to Tyerman. It did not occur to him that his office had given a roeipt for tin money. ; Mr. Stephen Hucl.e-. estate af.e r t. of Auckland, gave evidence in support ot J1 he plaintiff's ver.-ion of tho conditions I under which he parted with his £f>2s ' lhe case i- proceeding. i " -