VANISHED £500.

Auckland Star, Volume XLV, Issue 127, 29 May 1914, Page 2

VANISHED £500.

CrURTOUS STOET OF A SPECTJTATTON.

.1 ■i r.KTTTXG TIIE DTKECTORP. ; -SWORE TTJETT) XK'KR COXSEXT."

Tlio question of whether a sum of £0-2.'. paid l.y William Daltnn. of Auckland, in conntvtion with Uir llotation nf Manures. 1,t<1., was an investment in the mm pan y or a private loan to an individual interested in it- promotion, was raised before hi* llomir Mr. .lusticc Stringer in the Auckland Supreme Court to-day, when the hearine; nf the ease in which Daltnn sued the company and its direct.>r< ' Messrs. .lames Samuel Dicksun. M.1.. William Alfred Taylor. .lames Carfsi,].' ( nlpan, and John Rountreei for tin , recovery of the money, was resumed. Dr. Ra'infnrd was fnr'the plaintiff, and Mr. McYca-h anil Mr. A. K. Skehnn defended. I'nrther evi<|eni'<' was given liy Stephen Tluirhes. estate auent. in ih.' i-fTpft that he considered thai Cray, the interim secretary, hnil tin- n'vrs-ary authority to pay him the commission out of the. lion tliii-1. the -hares in tin' company would not !..• allotted. He understood thai 70(10 .-hares had m applied for. NONSI'IT MOYKI) FOR. This ennrdmled the plaintiff - * ease, and Mr. McVenjrh. appearing for ilefeniiant Taylnr. thereupon moved for A nonsuit. With r.-ir.ird to the £1-25 paid as eommis-iopi ii was quite rlear that the defendant* were in n.. way respon--ihle f.'f the money. Dr. liiimford: I admit at men th-at we ranti'it recover the £!2"i, .is we were parties to :in illegal pnymrnt. I'r.'ieedin-j. Mr. McYeusrh ennlcnded thai the din-dors never had the money. which ha.l 1 n deposed of Lr-fore the company came into bci.-vr. That. t)i'in» so, the statutory obligation .lid not Fasten upon them. So far from being the ajlfnt of the individual directors. Cray v>.is I'm- aj_'cnt nf Ihtlton to pay the money to Tvrman. or the of T\errmin'to receive it from Daltnn. The money was purely a loan t.. Tyerman. tun there was added to the transaction an empty form, which earned no meantine if the money was intended to he a loan. If til- , noney was inri"i:lcl to lie a loan i"Jray rifrhtly" p.iid it to Tycrman. Intl. if il was intended to In' application and allotment moneys in rc-peet. of £-2.-,i)n -hare-, it was not, a loan to Tyerman. The rea-on why the application was put in for shares was almost obvious —it was the question of commission. It was competent for the Court, in determining whether the money »v a loan or otherwise, to -t rip aside the formalities nf the agreement entered into by the part its. in order In arrive at what was really tie- intention. Seeing that the company was not actually formed. 1 he director's could only he responsible for that which they a.niiilly received. I I.AIM RKDrcF.n. Mr. Skeltnn. on behalf of other defendants. arL"i"il upon -imilar lines, conjtendina that t> main cvrTenc i-cit t. -h.nv that the money »;i- n loan hetweon the plainiilT and itTiiun. Dr. H.-imford inliin«.f<-.l tli.il tlr> plaintiff abandoned the claim f.,r the £l-».-i paid as commission. With repani to the £.-,011. he contend.-d th.it (he pr.-imo* t- ' were, under s<"ctinn 1.1 of the Companies i.\ct. responsible, .v.id nnV-s ,; , v ,. r e i proved that Daltnn ij.i-ivpil Cray—.if which (here w.,s ~1 , .-ir,.^;,,n _ nl o .; r;ir ..-. action liel.vee.] ihi li ; nti'r ami Tverman iwiw immaterial. Vr. Crir- story ih.it Ihe did no! iiolice T tin I. I'm' inn'vy \v;.s 'made out as appli-ifinn and allotment ■mon.-y for shares was in.-redible. or <l--e ii! showed ta.il !ie wn- cuil'v r>T the eriss. lest neplipene". Dr. l'amfotd pmeerded itn quote decision-" i:i ■siipp-iri of his r.-rn .tention tlni: tiie -lir-vrs wen- ve.-pnn-jsible for moneys nvi.vd ny f'.rny. I His Honor 'observed th.it a«'f:«r r.s j Tverman was eonc".-:i- il 1: vn« not inMended Hint the £.->.)> s; io ,,ld r ,..uh the j company. WTIKRK Till. MONT.V WEST. Dr. liamfnrd replied that Tyerman .claimed thai lie did n<>l 2<-t :t. All this,connected with the company seemed to he i-nnlldi-nt that it would turn out. nil rijjht. :in.l the money w:H largely <\- taken up instead if b-in:: rlevnt"d to !o! taininj: plant. A pnx-ejixinn «f ilireeiors then entered ! the 'bo\ to tell 111.- -tory of how they ! were induced to lend Uu-ir name.s -to the | pro.-pn-:tis. William Alfred Taylor. fle.rk. of Kemnera, f<irmerly <if liirkeni head, described how he bitarno a<"I qtiainie I ivith Ty-ermnn in ihe course of I jonrneyinfi to and from the m-iirinr stiliurb. Tyerman "tolj that it 1 w.Mlld <os-t him nothinpr to qualify as a director of Manures, Jyu].. ami promised him -">0 -.■hare.s f.ir nothinp. Mo de- : murred n-t first, but nit raiately nnreed tvi I beetiiTie ;l iiie.tnber i»f the directorat<? on the tinderswmiinft ih-at Jie was under no responsibility whatever. iljantrhI ter.) lie neveV knew that Mr. (Jray ; had received £.'ioo. MORK. SIIARK-S FOR .NOTILINC. J James Samuel Uitkson. ..M.P.. said ht I was appro.iched by 'IVerm-.iTi. ami turned I the proposal <in\\n on<-e n>r twice, but j when Tyerman eaid 'that lie had pntfoui ' direelor.s. and wanted a fifth in order U: i <ret Ihe prn?pei-t.ii,-; out, he consented — ,mi the understanding that he .-houldnot 'be responsible, i Renewed lauphtpr.) lie, too. wa- promi.sinl shares foi lions,, was -ittinDr. l'.auiford ipii'stinned witness as If whether he was iliLi-nded 10-he a dllmiTn ■and n::r.n-t t.he public }.y the planwilli of his name. Im:. wi:ne-s said he wa . not iin M.l', then. lie jldmH.t.fd thai he t.y>k no steps uhutever i<i verify tin -laternents in i'ne pi.T-poc; u-. Mr. .l.im--, «'.iri-ide < I rl.]<an 1..1 d . similar xi.iry t.f tir-: diV'linin<i 'I'ver rurthw.-. ( The .liiJs<-- I: w»ms to mo tin' v! in_' thill Ihi-y'd ncVr rninr-n:. |.»; i |, P . .-..ri-eni.-l. Mr. liuiinin-. who is ~„ l,.jiell p.- ---.,■ Hamilton, a.-o reenhej a promise ~ vi11i...:: r.-iiKin-iliilin lie iin.l.-rsto!!. i 'mi Mr 1C- k-oii and Mr. Culpan vver. re-;. ",-.!.■•■ ■ l.a.|..'ii-.'r ' I , '-.,, -~. -,],.;._•