MAGISTERIAL.

Press, Volume LI, Issue 8779, 27 April 1894, Page 3

MAGISTERIAL.

CHRISTCHURCH. Tucbsday, Apkiz, 26. (Before R. Beetham, Esq., ,S.M.)

Civil Cases. —Staveley v Levy, claim £52 8s 10d; Mr Stringer for plaintiff, Mr Fisher for This was a case in which after the sale of a parcel of shares in the New Zealand and Kiver Plate Mortgage Company, the Compauy refused to pat the purchaser's name on the register, and the defendant contended that the transaction was void, and refused to pay. The evidence and avguir.etit had been heard previously, and judgment was now jjiven for the plaintiff with costs, the Court bolJirg that- the onus of registration rested with the trausieree. us* , defendant. Judgment was also given in R H. i'isher v Park, & cLum for £93 17s 6d. Mr J. B. Fisher for pi.imtiff, Mr Stringer for defendant. Urieliy, it wus an action bet-weea shavetjrokers relating to the purch-se of un<l payment for shares in the Loan ami Mercantile Agency Company by plaintiff for a client of the defendant, who, after a heavy fall in the value of the shares, repudiated the transaction. The defendant in his turn decline-i responsibility, on the ground that when the tiausfer was sent to his client the name of the purchaser was not filled iv. Mr Beetiiam now said :— It- appears to mc that the question is ijarroweddown to this, Did the plaintiff carry out the instructions of the defendant to purchase these shares, in such a manner as to enable him to sustain the present claim ? Hs certainly purchased the shares and- dealt with them in accordance with the practice which appears to oi.ta.iu amongst shacebrokers, but the transfer he accepted from Feu wick (the vendor) was illegal and altogether. \'oid. The plaintiff paut £93-173 6d for that which did not exist: the shares never passed to the defendant nor to any one else ; they remained with the seller, li'enwick they are to this day. 'Some six monthe after this illegal .transfer was sigced, a in which the defendant's name was entered was presented and he refused it, the shares were then valueless. I don't thick the defendant somes out of the transaction with clean: haiufe. He knew that Hull (defendant's* client) was repudiating the purchase of the shares, when he gave the piaiutiii his name us transferee, and hid sucli knowledge from him.- When the plaintitf had Hull's name-gi veto to him, he still dealt with the uiauk tra%9fer, ; sentling it to Hull blank as to the name of the transferee in distinct contravention of the Act, because he says, hs did uou know who Hull had behind him. North v Giove is authority to show that where a. transfer of shares id signed before the ptuchaser's name ia titled in it is void, and Lord Coleridge ia his judgment in Neilson v J allies says tiiafc " customs mast be lawful id order to be binding." These customs or practices which appear to obtain amongst sharebrokere here ato not lawful, aud transactions, carried ont iv the way this one lias been clenlfc with are void ; therefore the shares were never purchased, ami the plaintiff ia my opinion uaunot recover. But, putting aside the question of legality or illegality, the conduct of the defendant has been of sucii a character that he shall have judgment without costs. Saviile v Gaiusfoid, claim £4 3s, an amount due on the purchase and repairs of a. bicycle sold to defendant's son, a minor. Mr Widdowsou for defendant, who stated that he had not authorised the purchase. • Plaintiff was nonsuited. Collie Bros, v Mills, claim £1 16s 6d for horse feed, &c. Adjourned till May 3rd for the production of plaintiffs' books. Delamain aud Co. v Patterson, £12 15s 6d. Mr Russell for plaintiffs, Mr Johnson for defendant. Tne claim was for the hire of vehicles alleged to have been provided to the order of the defendant at a local election in 1892.- Judgment was now given for plaiutiifs with costs. Marks v Page, claim £62 for money lent and interest; *Mr Lane for i>laintiff, Mr Kippenberger for defendant, whose evideuce had been taken in Auckland. After hearing witnesses for plaiutitf, judgment was for him for the amount claimed with costs. Judgments went for plaintiff* by default, with costs, iv City Council v Atkinson £7> 0s oJ, same v Elizabeth Wright £3 14s 4d, fcaviUe v Ryaii 17s 6d, Kintaid v Wills j£l Is lid, Anderson.v Fleming £44, Veitclv v Mosley £2 15s, liaggeb and Percy v Cavson £5 10a, Sydenham Borough Couucil v Ward £3 16s 4d, same v Wallace £2 9s, and same v Findlay £1 sa.