SUPREME COURT.

Press, Volume LXVI, Issue 13905, 2 December 1910, Page 3

SUPREME COURT.

*. - CIVIL SITTINGS. The Civil Sittings of the Supreme Court were continued before his Honour Mr Justice Sim yesterday. TALBOT v. HALSWELL* QUARRY COMPANY. Jane Talbot claimed from the Halswell Quarry Company the amount of £122 i9s 3d as unpaid dividends declared by the company, with the alternative that the sum be re-transferred to the credit of the plaintiff in the books of the company. Mr G. Harper, with him Mr E. T. Harper, appeared for plaintiff, and Mr F. Wilding, with him Mr Dalziel, tor defendants. For the plaintiff, it was claimed that up to or about February 2-th, 1908, she was the registered holder of -_uO fully paid up £1 shares in the Halswell Quarry Company. Dividends had boon duly declared by the company from time to time to ho paid to the olauitiff. On or about April 30th, 1910, thd sum of £1227 _s 3d stood to the credit of the plaintiff's dividend account in tho books of tho defendant company, no part of which sum had been paid, although requests had been made for payment. On April 30th, lOju, uh sum was transferred in tlio defendant company's books to the credit of \* illiam and Robert Piteaithly, carrying on business as Piteaithly and Co., and the transfer had taken place without the knowledge, or consent of the plaintiff. A request for the re-transfer of the sum to the credit of the piaunitt in the company's books had been refused. Plaintiff claimed tlie sum of £1227 9s 3d, with the alternative of a re-transfer to her credit of tlie amount, j A number of witnesses gave evidence for the plaintiff. The defence denied that tho plaintiff was the registered holder of 3500 shares in the company, or that the dividends had been declared by the company to be paid to the plaintiff in respect of hor shares in the capital of the company. It was further denied that the plaintiff had ever reqxiested the defendant to pay to her the said ( sum, or that the amount been j transferred to the credit of William and Robert Piteaithly. It was submitted that no profits available for the purpose of payment of dividends had ever been earned by tho company. Mr Wilding applied for a nonsuit on the grounds that Mrs Tnlbot was not qualified to sue, and that under the Companies Act a dividend could only bo declared through a general meeting of shareholders. No such meeting of shareholders had been held, and any attempt on the part of tho directors to declare a dividend was ultra vires. Mr Harper said he would withdraw the claim for the lump sum, and apply j only for the re-transfer, j His Honour questioned the legality of such a course, and Mr Harper stated that he would, in tho circumstances, accept a nonsuit. Plaintiff was nonsuited, costs being allowed to the defendants.