MAGISTRATE'S COURT.

Grey River Argus, 26 June 1906, Page 3

MAGISTRATE'S COURT.

A CLAIM FOR CALLS,

The Magistrate (Mr W. G. K. Kenrick) yesterday morning gave the following judgment in the case, Fresh Food and Ice Company, v P. J. Bellett:— 'The Greymouth Fresh Food and Ice Company, Ltd. (Mr Guinness) v. Patrick John Bellett (Mr Joyce). This is. a claim for the' application fees, allotment money, arid-amount due for calls on ioo shares in the above Company, amounting" to ,£0.5, less ;£io ciedited as application money paid. "Defendant denies haying paid the application fee or any moneys for allotment or calls, and now denies all liability. "The application for shares is signed by defendant and on the face of i ( . is for ioo shares. Defendant, in his evidence, admits he signed the applica tion form in blank and says Mr Lynch i (one of the brokers) asked him to take! i jo shares; that he refused, but consented to take 50; that Mr Lynch said he was in a hurry, and would Jill in the number of shares at his office and took'; 1 the application form "away signed in-i blank. - , "Defendant- further says upon . get- ' ting notice of allotment of ioo shares h » complained to Mr Lynch, who said | it was a mistake and he would have it corrected ; he also'' wrote and personally complained to the then secretary of the company. "Defendant at a subsequent date received notice of calls on 50 shares only,' and is now sued for application fee, allotment, and calls .on 100 shares; — "Defendant swears positively he nev er paid £10 or any other sum to Mr Lynch. Mr Lynch, one of the brokers, in his evidence, admits he has no record of defendant having paid ,£io~ application fee, but believes .-he did, because he (Lynch) paid that sum for defendant; amongst other application fees, to the ! company. Defendant swears he signed the aplication form in blank and did not' put the figures 'ioo' in the form. Alt Lynch, who was present when de : fendant signed the form, will not ■ swear defendant put the figures 100 [ in the form, but believes Ke did, and itha 1 . he applied for 100 shares, altho- ' ugh- defendant subsequently, disputed 1 taking more than 50 shares. - "The minutes of the Company's meting held on 23rd June, 1905, were 1 put^ in evidence, showing a resolution 'passed and confirmed — 'That 25 of the shares now standing in the -name of the defendant be cancelled, and that a further^ 5 shares be transferred to Mr Lnych, upon condition defendant pay all calls upon the balance of shares (50).' Mr Lynch was present at the meeting. "I am satisfied on "the evidence before me : - (1). That defendant did not pay any application money to Mr Lynch. • (2). That defendant applied for 50 shares, not 100. (3). That the application form was signed in blank, and that the figures 100 were; written in error for so subsequently while the form -was in the possession , of or control- of Mr Lynch. "Notwithstanding these facts proved the defendant would 3 in my. opinion, be liable on the 100 shares to the company, for the error was brought about by. his gross neglect in signing a blank "orm had it not' been for the fact that it is proved by the minutes of the meeting put in evidence that the com,pany decided to recognise the error by inssing the resolution agreeing to re--Juce defendant's number of shares to j so in the manner therein stated, and I the share register put in evidence records a transfer of 50 shares from defendant to Mr Lynch, but this_ has been crossed out in red ink, when and by whom there is no evidence to show j and further, the notices of calls were sent by the company, to defendant on 50 shares only. "The further points raised by Mi Joyce are namely — (1). That defendant is not liable on any shares, because the application money was not paid before allotment to the company. (2). That defendant is entitled to -- avoid the whole of the shares, not having been alloted the number he applied for. (3). That the calls have not been made in accordance with Articles of Assosciation, Rule 15, namely, that the notice of call, did not contain the name of the person to whom the call was to | be paid and the time of payment. " I rule .against these contentions; I think — (1). The evidence shows the applica- 1

tion money was in hand at the time of allotment. (2). That the evidence proves defend ant did not attempt to avoid his application, but oniy to have : the number of shares reduced to" '': ■ :$O: - S si '" S V-' 4 <*■ -O---^ ' ' " ■"■ ■■"■" ' (3). Rule is of the .Articles of Asso- .: -is sufficiently complied with when the. .notice of call gives the ; time of payment of call : arid is made payable at thecom- .; pany's office, with the secre- [ . u-i-y's name giyen. . ".My judgment is that; defendant is liable on 50 shares in the company, not ico; that the fact of his not pay'r.z;: !:>r/rrpplicatipnvpaoney at the time -Jf applying for the shares does riot re..lieve him of liability to pay "the "application fee, but as the plaintiff company have- givenOcVedjV 'for' it (having received, it from Mr Lynch), this claim is aimatte'r betweeri Mr Lynch and defehdant; j : further give judgment for plaintiff _comp'any for £5 due on allotment : of §0 shares at 2s and for £37 •'■.ios being 15 calls, at is on '50 shares ; tbtar, ios.'" - Mr Joyce submitted the defendant should- be given credit for -the paid to the company. . The Magistrate replied in the nega : tive.''\ .-] ■-. ' ■•..;. ■..■■■■^-'■■' : :-- ■ ■' . : . ,"■ Mr Joyce stated that defendant intended to appeal against the decision.