THE COURTS-TO-DAY.

Evening Star, Issue 12881, 2 August 1906, Page 5

THE COURTS-TO-DAY.

magistrates court. (Before W. G. Riddell, Esq., S.M.) Judgment was given for plaintiffs by default in the following cases :—Ahlfeld Bros, and Co. (Mr L. D. Bumard) v. Benjamin C. Robbias (Hawera), for £l9 10s (amount of a promissory note), with £1 10s 6d costs; same v. John R. Graham (Palmerston North), for £l2 5s 5d (goods supplied), with £1 10s 6d costs; Thomson., Bridget, and Co. (Mr Moore) v. William Btiddicum (Saddle Hill), for £2 5s lOd (goods supplied), with 10s costs; E. H. Williams (Mr Davey) v. Christopher Boddy, for £1 16s (balance of account for professional services), with 6s costs; Samuel Jarvis (Mr A. E. Irwin) v. George Jelly (Oamaru), for £3 15s (goods supplied), with 10s costs; same v. Fred. Asher (Flagstaff Hill), for 9s (balance of account), with 5s costs; same v. Arthur Deihl_ (Green Island), for £2 15s (goods supplied), with 10s costs; Irvine and Stevenson (Mr \V. D. Stewart) v. Harry •Jackson (Palmerston North), for £56 2s 9d (goods supplied), with £2 14s costs; Dawson And Co., Ltd; (Mr A. E. Irwin) v. Matilda O’Brien (Kaikorai), for 12s od {balance of account), with 6s costs: Musical Exchange v. Helen Rutherford' for £1 2s 6d (balance of account), with 6s costs. In the judgment summons case Dallas ™ Mfif* (Messrs Irwin and Irwin) v. Ellen, Norman (Mr Hay), a claim for £ll 15s 8d (goods supplied), evidence was token regarding defendant’s means, Won HIS WorShip dismissed the applicaJ* id .? Gr ’ and 00 ■ v - Thomas at A"T r, r Wooduousc for plaintiffs, and a;’ C ‘ MacGregor for defendant.—Mr Vvoodhouae said that this was a claim on a guarantee for £47 3s 6d. Defendant was ri t ‘ , S Q a director of the Voltaic Dredging Company, and at that particular tame the company required the goods set vat in the statement of chum. Plaintiff, on being approached on the subject, declined to supply the goods without a guarantee was given. The directors were informed of this at a meeting held on the 10th March, 1904, the matter was discussed, and certain directors, including daeMiat, agreed to guarantee the cost. Air Wheeler, secretary of the company, afterwards saw Mr Thomson, and showed a oopy °f the directors’ resolution. Mr Thomson accepted the guarantee, and in due course supplied the required goods. Neither the.delivery nor the non-payment was disputed by the defendant. The plaintiff relied upon the entry in the minute and upon a letter written hr Mr Wheeler ns constituting the guai«jteo. Counsel referred to authorities regarding the status of guarantors. The minute itself was sufficient to bring the case under the Statute of Frauds as a complete guarantee. Counsel wonld say, further, that the letter written on behalf of the directors was also a guarantee signed by the agent of the defendant. The real question for the consideration of the Bench was as to whether either or both of those documents amounted to q guarantee to meet the statute in regard to guarantees —R. T. Wheeler said that in 19P4 ha was secretary of the Voltaic Dredging Company. The position of the company at that time was very bad. They had spent all their money, and had not completed the. dredge. It was estimated that certain supplies required would cost about £6O, and the matter was brought before the directors, who were informed that Mr Thomson required a personal guarantee before he would let the company have what was wanted. The directors agreed to guarantee the anibunt, and a minute in accordance with that determination was signed by four directors, including Mr Steel, Instructions were given, and the goods were ordered, and duly delivered by plaintiff's firm. The directors were subsequently informed that the goods had been supplied. In cross-examination witness stated that he did not remember whether Mr R. S. Somerville, the then chairman of the company, had been made aenuainted with the details. Mr Somerville was not present at the meeting at which the minute was signed. At the meeting Mr E. C. Reynolds was rung up on the telephone and asked whether ho would join with the directors in the guarantee, and he said that ho would.—This closed the case for plaintiff.— Mr MacGregor said that His Worship would see that the guarantee was signed by four directors, and that appended to the minute recording the resolution respecting the guarantee there was a memo, to the effect that Mr Reynolds had,rang up to say he would join in. Mr Reynolds was ruit'd about a month before this the chairman of directers of- the company, and was largely interested. Owing to his retirement from the chairmanship Mr Somerville was elected to that position. At the meeting on the 10th of March Mr Somerville was not present, and it was during his Absence that the alleged grarantee arrangement was made. Those directors who were present at this meeting would say that what was arranged was that the directors and Mr Reynolds should join the guarantee. There w no authority given to use Mr Somerville’s name. Mr Reynolds would say that the alleged telephoning never look place, and that his was never asked to join the guarantee. The other directors would state that there wan no telephoning business. It was perfectly plain that Mr Wheeler had no authority from either Mr Srmerville or Mr Reynolds to guarantee the amount reipiired. The agreement was that the directors plus Mr Reynolds should join in the guarantee. It was understood that the minute was to he shown to Messrs Somerrjlle and Reynolds, so that they might participate in the signing of the guarantee, mt it was never meant that the guarantee ras to bo. given without their participation. )If Wheeler took it upon Idmself id present rhe alleged guarantee and to give the inter. The letter to Messrs Thomson and - Sridger wp written without authority, and did not hind the directors. Messrs Thomson and Bridger lot the matter rest for a long time, and then they wrote to Mr Reynolds, who in his reply den : ed all knowledge of any guarantee. There was nothing in the minute to show by whom the guarantee was given. There was one important matter the Court would have to determine, and that was who were the directors? It was clear from the evidence given by Mr Wheeler that each director was to contribute his proport'on. Counsel relied upon the point that Mr Wheeler never was authorised to give a. guarantee on behalf of the directors.—Eardley C. Reynolds sa : d he had not the faintest recollection of Mr Wheeler ringing him up on the matter. He could not remember the subject in any shape or form, and knew nothing whatever about Thomson and Bridger's account until they wrote him. He was in Mr Wheeler’s office frequently, and nothing at all was said about the affair.—Arthur J. Shaw said he acted as chairman at the meeting of directors held on the 10th of March. guarantee was decided on provided that Messrs Somerville and Reynolds came in with the rest. The secretary was instructed to prepare the guarantee, and communicate with the two gentlemen named with regard to the signing of it. Mr Wheeler did not telephone to Mr Reynolds while witness was in the room, neither did Mr Wheeler report that Mr Reyno’ds had agreed to join the directors as a guarantor.-—Thomas Steel corroborated the evidence of the previous witness regarding the arrangement arrived at in respect to the guarantee. Remembered nothing about the telephone incident. Mr Wheeler said at the meeting that Mr Reynolds had previously mentioned that be would join in.—Sis Worship reserved his decision.