Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image
This article displays in one automatically-generated column. View the full page to see article in its original form.

THE COURTS.—TO-DAY.

SUPREME COURT-CIVIL SITTINGS. (Before His Honor Mr Justice Williams.) CTJKBIH r. CCBBIfI. Claim to recover L4OO on a deed. Sir R. Stout, counsel fof plaintiff, said that there was no appearance of defendant. The case was a suit for the recovery of a sum of money on a deed, defendants being the father and brother of plaintiff. There was really po defence. Defendants admitted the deed, add had sinee offered plaintiff L6O, whicji he (Sir B. Stout) submitted wat sufficient admission. Defendants ' did hot deny the deed, but denied that they promised plaintiff by deed. Nathaniel Currie, the pla'ntiff, said tfiat he was in partnership with' his father and brother, Vyillfam and George Currie. They agreed to dissolve partnership, and witness was to get L4OO. There was a deed of dissolution of partnership, and L4OO was now owing upon it. Witness hid received no interest since May, 1885, the date of the Statement of claim. Since this action Was

commenced, they had offered to pay witness LSO. They had never disputed the claim. There were no other witnesses.

His Honor gave judgment for the plaintiff for L4OO and interest at 7 per cent, from the 30th May, 1885, to date ; costs as per scale on the amount recovered ; disbursements and witnesses’ expenses to be fixed by the Registrar, I.I.OYI) V. VOII.BR. Suit for the specific jerformance of a contract to purchase shares. Sir R. Stout appeared for plaintiff; Mr R. L. Stanford for defendant. The statement of claim set forth that in April, 1887, plaintiff was owner of 100 shares in the Equitable Insurance Association; that in the said month plaintiff agreed with defendant to sell the said shares to defendant for LI, which was then paid by defendant to plaintiff, and plaintiff thereupon delivered to defendant the scrip for the shares, and signed an instrument prepared by defendant and represented by defendant to be a transfer from plaintiff to defendant of the shares; that the defendant afterwards informed plaintiff that the transfer was registered, and that plaintiff’s name had been removed from the share register; that the plaintiff had lately discovered that the said instrument so signed by him was not, in fact, a transfer to defendant of the shares, but W’as a transfer in blank, and that the plaintiff’s name is still on the register of members as the owner of the said shares; that since the said sale the comEany have made calls amounting to ,17 10s on the plaintiff in respect to the said shares, and have brought an action against the plaintiff to recover the said sum ; that the defendant has refused and still refuses to complete the said agreement for sale and to accept a proper transfer. Plaintiff therefore prayed: that it may be decreed that the said agreement for the sale of the said shares be specifically performed and carried into execution; that defendant be ordered to forthwith tender to plaintiff for his signature a proper transfer to defendant, and on plaintiff signing the same that the defendant be ordered forthwith to register the same and procure the said shores to be duly registered in his name on tho register of members of the company ; that defendant may be ordered to pay to the company the amount of the said calls and interest for which the plaintiff has been sued as aforesaid, and to pay to plaintiff all costs incurred in connection with the calls ; and that defendant may be ordered to indemnify plaintiff against all calls which may be hereafter made in respect ta the said shares.

The statement of defence admitted several of the allegations in the statement of claim, but denied others. For a further statement of defence the defendant said (1) that in April, 1887, defendant agreed on behalf of a then uj disclosed principal to purchase from plaintiff 100 shares in the company for LI, paid plaintiff the same, and received from him the scrip of the said shares; (2) that he did not then or at any time represent the transfer of the said shares signed by plaintiff to be a transfer by the plaintiff to defendant ; (3) that the name of the purchaser In the transfer was left out, with the knowledge and assent of the plaintiff, in order that the name of defendant’s principal might be filled in afterwards ; (4) that the defendant relies on the Stamp Act, 1882, sections 131 to 134 inclusive, as a farther defence to the action. Evidence was given by William Lloyd (plaintiff), Charles Henry Bailey, Thomas Kerr, and Alexander Simpson (in the employ of the company), Andrew Maxwell (manager of the company), Charles Field, Frederick Ludwig Voller (defendant), John Joseph Connor, and William Cargill Kirkcaldy (late manager of the company). His Honor granted the decree as prayed.

This article text was automatically generated and may include errors. View the full page to see article in its original form.
Permanent link to this item

https://paperspast.natlib.govt.nz/newspapers/ESD18890711.2.25

Bibliographic details

THE COURTS.—TO-DAY., Evening Star, Issue 7956, 11 July 1889

Word Count
800

THE COURTS.—TO-DAY. Evening Star, Issue 7956, 11 July 1889

Working