THE COURTS—TO-DAY.

Evening Star, Issue 7505, 25 April 1888, Page 2

THE COURTS—TO-DAY.

SUPREME COURT-IN BANCO,

(Before His Honor Mr Justice Williamb.) (iKAV V. TIIK KIjUITAItLK INSUKANCK COMPANY.

His Honor delivered judgment as follows

In this case I reserved for further consider ation whether tho carrying on the business of fire insurance outßide the colony was ultra vires of the company. The question then is whether, looking at the memorandum of association of the company, the company are competent to make a contract for insuring against fire property beyond the limits of the colony, or whether such a contract :s beyond the objects set out in the memorandum of association. If such contracts are thus ultra vires, the company would not be bound by them at all (Ashbury Company v. Riche, L.R. 7, H.L. 653), and the Court would interfere to prevent the company purporting to bind themselves by such contracts. If, however, they are not -ultra vires of tho memorandum of association, then, on the authority of Foes v. Harbottio (10 Hare, 461), the Court will not interfere, but will leave it to the shareholders to decide whether business of this kind is to be continued. Now the memorandum of association is, aB Ims been said, the charter of the company, and it is to tho memorandum of association that a person proposing to contract with the company must look if he wishes to ascertain whether tho proposed contract is one which tho company arc competent to enter into. Tho company, being a corporation, can bind themselvesby any contract, except the contract is prohibited expressly, or by necessary implication on the face of the act of incorporation (Shrewsbury and Birmingham Railway Company v. North Western Railway Company, G H.L. Ca, at page 135; and see note D, page 653, 4 ed. of 'Pollock on Contract?,' and cases there discussed). The question, therefore, is whether contracts to insure against fire property situate outside the colony are forbidden either expressly or by necessary implication by the memorandum of association. Now they are not forb dden expressly. The terms of the memorandum aro exceedingly wide, and there is no limit of place within which the business is to bo carried on. Moreover, the business of tire insurance is coupled in tho memorandum of association with that of marine insurance, and it is obvious that to carry on the business of marine insurance property outside the colony must be insured. I can find nothing in the memorandum of association to lead me to the conclusion that contracts for fire insurance on property outside the colony aro necessarily forbidden by implication by the terms of the memorandum. A simple way to test the question is to consider whether, if the articles of association had made detailed provisions for conducting fire and life insurance business outside the colony, the articles would in this respect have been inconsistent with the memorandum of association, and the provisions therefore altogether void. Ido not think this could be contended for a moment. If the plaintiff is dissatisfied with the modo in which the directors carry on the business, he must get a majority of his fellow shareholders to be of the same mind, and must move the directors through them. Judgment for defendants, with costs.

His Honor : As to the question of costs, I do not know exactly what amount of property is at stake. Sir K. Stout (counsel for the company): It is impossible, your Honor, to say what may be at stake ; there may be thousands of pounds iuvolved. It will be better to leave it to your Honor to fix the scale. His Honor: I suppose it is a case in which costs should be on the highest scale. Looking at the nature of the case that is only reasonable, as if the sum of L6OO was in contest. Costs as if LGOO was claimed and for a second counsel; disbursements and witnesses' expenses. HOWELLS V. THE I'NION BANK. On the application of Sir Robert Stout this case, a motion for an injunction, wus fixed to he heard to-morrow. m'dermid v. m'dermiu. It was arranged that this matter should be taken by His Honor in Chambers. RTJTIIKRFORD V. PARK AND OTHERS. Mr Denniston intimated that this case had been settled. HENRY DRIVER V. JAMES M'IJONALI). This was a case that had been referred to Banco from the civil sittings, it having been found that the facts were not disputed and that there was nothing to go to a jury, the question as between the parties being simply one of law, as to the interpretation of an agreement set out in the claim. Mr Chapman, with him Mr Denniston, appeared for the plaintiff ; Sir R. Stout for defendant. Mr Chapman, in the course of Ills address on behalf of plaintiff, said that he did not ask in the formal terms of a prayer for the full working out of all the specific relief to which he was entitled, because it might bo sufficient for plaintiffs purpose to ask for the one thing lie had actually claimed, viz., payment of a certain sum of money ao rent.

The agreement ivith defendant was one by which Mr Driver personally agreed to withdraw from the lime business for a term of ten years, and during that time neither directly nor indirectly to engage in the business of lime burning, or for that purpose to lease or sell of otherwise dispose of any land in the Horseshoe Estate for a like term, and to give to defendant a lease over the paddock of 120 acres in which limekilns bad been erected. Mr Denniston followed on the same side. Sir Robert Stout argued the case on behalf of the defendant, contending that plaintiff must obtain the consent of the mortgagees to the agreement before he was entitled to succeed. Ml- Chapman replied, and His Honor reserved judgment. CITY POLICE COURT. (Before Messrs J. Elmer and J. Wright, J.P.s.) A Disorderly Pkisonkk.— James lUdddl was charged with disorderly behaviour while drunk, and with damaging Constable Ramsay's overcoat.—On the first charge the defendant was fined L 5, in default one month's imprisonment; and on the second charge he was ordered to make good the damage done, and in addition was fined L 5, or one month—the sentences to be cumulative. Assault.— William Dri/den was charged with having on Monday last assaulted Jane Ah Can. Mr W. A. Stout appeared for the complainant ; Mr D. M. Stuart for the defendant. Complaiuant stated that the assault was committed on her because she had gone to claim money due her for vegetables supplied.—A fine of 5s and costs (including professional costs) was inflicted, in default three days' imprisonment.