SUPREME COURT.

Dominion, Volume 5, Issue 1300, 1 December 1911, Page 3

SUPREME COURT.

CLAIM UNDER A MORTGAGE, ■AMOOO INVOLVED. Lengthy legal argument was tho main feature of a. ca-re in the -Supreme' Court yesterday, in which T. G. Macarthy, brewer, of -Wellington, pro<M?eded - against James Bonnie, architect," of Wellington, and others to icoovcr tho sum of ,£IOOO arid interest, thnreou, alleged to lie duo to plaintiff by defendants under a mortgage. on land at Island Bay. The Chief Justice (Sir 'Robert Stout) was'on.- the Bench. • Mr. J. C. Peacock, with liim Mr. HogSard. appeared for T. G. Macarlbv; Mr. T ;'W. Ilislop, with him Mr. T.C. A. Ilislop, for 'the defendants (Bennin and others); Mr.. K. G.. Bolton .for the-trus-tees of the late C. W. Benbow; and Mr. T. ■ Young for C. M. Montefiore.' From' the facts placed before the Court it' appeared that Francis Loudon raid ,land.at Island Bay to a syndicate of 10 parson?, including himself and' defendants. ■ The 'syndicate paid . JKOOO cdali, and gave Loudon a mortgage over the land for ,£IOOO, the balance of the purcliaso money. Loudon assigned this mortgage, to T. G. Maearthv, who now sued cjofendants for the ,£IOOO. The defences- set up were: First,' that defendants were onlv liablo for .fJOO each;, and -secondly, that- the mortgage was invalid because it was made between Loudon as one of the mortgagors anil himself as mortgagee. It' was also' alleged that several members of the syndicate were bankrupt or insolvent and, therefore, plaint iff a.s assignee of Loudon had to bear his sharo of the contributions, winch they were liable to make. Decision. was reserved. ROSS GOLDFIELDS. ACTION*. STILL UNSETTLED. Finality was not reached yesterdav in tho' -ease in -which certain shareholders of the Itoss Goldiiolds, Lid., asked the Supremo-.Court to' grant an injunction TD>tTaiiling r.Jio directors of the company from .enforcing' a call of Is., 'which- was struck last week and which is pavable on December • 11-three davs before a general meeting. The .casa had. been before the. Court on three previous occasions, and' on Wednesdav it was adjournal sec/if, there-was any prospect of a settlement being arrived at. Mr. I'.E. I'etlicrick appeared for the moving shareholders,-arid Mr. G.H. F'-ll for the company, ' • AVhen the. case 'was called the Chief Justice (Sir Itobert Stout) asked if anv arrangement had been come to. -Vj;- J'cll stated th.it the directors had authorised him to make a propo-al might moan a solution. That was loinake the caH payabh in instalments. • Mr. I'etherick sold, his whole objection r.-as to the.call Being paid before the meeting. ■ The . shareholders were vcrv itrong on that point. 1 His Honour S!(id he had read the affidavits, and '.could not see that the directors- were' meeting the points mado by the other side. 'It left a vague impressiou on his mind.that tho call was not made for the purpose of getting money, but to get at the. other., fellows.... "I might be wrong," added the learned Judge, "but that -is -my impression. ' I can't understand why the directors should fight the matter. ; IC is quite incomprehensible to me." It was then susrsrested by his Honour that the matter should stand over again Until this morning to see if-an arrangement' could- be arrived' at. This was agreed to.