PATEA.

Hawera Star, Volume XLVI, 11 June 1926, Page 5

PATEA.

(From Our Own Correspondent). BOROUGH COUNCIL. The monthly meeting of the Paten Borough Council was held on Monday evening last, the Mayor, Air P. S. Fin.-, lay son, presiding. Renewal of its .slaughtering license was granted to the Patea Butchery Co. A communication was received., from the Health Department, recommending that every precaution be taken bo prevent the .spread- of influenza, should an epidemic occur. —The Mayor said: he thought the town was in a very dean state, but, at the same time, every precaution would be taken. It was resolved to spend up to £2O on repairs to the shop occupied by Mr Wong. In reporting on the financial position of the borough, the Mayor said,the account was £44 in credit. This time last year iff had been £IOOO in debit. It was resolved to take action to collect the costs incurred by the council in connection with Mr Beetham’s lease. The question of setting out parking places for motor-cars 1 in the borough was .discussed, and the Town Clerk was instructed to report on the matter after ascertaining what towns of a similar size are doing.. The engineer reported that the hydroplant had run 401 hours during the month, the shortage of water haying again greatly reduced the running time. The supply of water- to househo’ders has been well maintained, 1,267,200 gallons being pumped during the month. MEAT COMPANY. Shareholders 1 in Patea District Meat Company, who are in arrears with their calls, and who are holding off paying up because they feel that they were induced to become shareholders by misrepresentation, would do uell to peruse the following remarks of Air J. S. Barten, S.M., in deciding a case in the local court recently. An application for '.save to defend was made by Air Roberts,’ on behalf of the defendant, who had been sued by the Patea District Meat- Co.. Ltd., for allotment money and calls on shares, and who had failed bo file a notice of intention to defend. The defendant being in attendance. Mr Rutherford, who appeared for the plaintiff company, .suggested that he should satisfy the court that he had a defence to the action. His Worship inquired of the defendant the grounds for his defence- and. on his replying that he claimed misrepresentation, in that he had been: informed by the company’s agent that, ho would be allowed four years in which to pay the calls, his "Worship pointed out that the application for share® signed by the defendant was expressed to be in: terms of the prospectus'issued by the company, which provided that calls could be made at stipulated oeriods. The defendant cou’d not. claim that 1 he had not read the prospectus, and his defence would therefore fail. In anv case, were misrepresentation iroved, a shareholder must take immediate action if he wished to obtain te’ief. The defendant in this case had held the .shares for many months, and Had never made any previous claim to the company of .misrepresentation. To vucceed in the Supreme Court, he would have to show that he had not been guilty of delay. The defendant thereupon' consented to judgment, being entered against him for the amount claimed. - 4