Lake County Press. PUBLISHED EVERY THURSDAY. Arrowtown: September, 19, 1901. CURRENT TOPICS.

Lake County Press, Issue 980, 19 September 1901, Page 4

Lake County Press. PUBLISHED EVERY THURSDAY.

Arrowtown: September, 19, 1901. CURRENT TOPICS.

The tnint that's given th-e guard, and to thyself be just

A (/ask of considerable interest to business nion was decided at the Magistrate's Court, Invercargill, before Mr S. E. McCarthy, last week'. Thomas Flint, greengrocer and seedsman, was charged with not having closed his shop on the afternoon of the day fixed by the local authorities as the statutory half-holiday for Invercargill. It appears from the evidence that in the evening of a halfholiday, Flint's shop was lit up, but the front door was locked. The Inspector of Factories saw three men enter and leave the shop, and on each occasion the door was unlocked and locked by the defendant. Of the two men identified by the inspector as having visited the shop, one Colquhoun said he called in for a yarn and whilst on the premises formed the intention of buying oranges for his sick wife. Defendant, Colquhoun alleged, refused to sell the oranges, but made a gift of some. The other customer, a Mr Legge, attracted by the bright light in the shop, was led to enter. His Worship was of the opinion that Legge's sole object for entering the shop was to purchase some poultry. He was admitted by defendant, to whom he must have made known his business, for the latter told Legge he could not sell, but there was no harm in his coming in and having a talk. Now a talk about what ! It was not suggested Legge was a friend of defendant, and it is only reasonable to assume any conversation would be directed to any intended purchase of the poultry. His Worship, in deciding the case, expressed himself thusly :—" I infer then that defendant admitted Legge to do business with him. Legge diil not purchase or order anything, his int.tut ion so to do having been frustrated by tin' too sudden appearance of the inspector. Looking at the well lit condition of (he shop, the time the defendant remained thuiein, to all intents and purposes at the receipt of custom, to the ingress ami ogress of customers, and at the circumstances surrounding the gift to Colquhoun, I must come to the conclusion that defendant was in his shop to do business with such of the public as might desire to enter, and so finding 1 am unable also to lind t hat nis shot) w.is kept

" closed against the public for the purposes of trade," within the moaning of section 2, of "The Shoos and Shop Assistants Act, 181»4." But counsel for defendant cited to ea>es (Goldstein v. Vanghan, 1807, L.R.D.1.Q.8.), and (Richards v. Sheenan, 5 N.Z.L.R. 487). His Worship ruled that the former did not apply and continued :—" In the present case Logge was admitted to do business, whilst Colquhoun was given fruit solely to lend an air of legality to what otherwise would have been an illegal sale. Coming now to Richards v. Sheehan, that was a case of an information under section 155 of The Licensing Act, 1881, wherein the defendant was charged with keeping open his licensed premises during prohibited hours. Both the main and side entrances were closed ; several persons, neither travellers nor lodgers, were inside purchasing drinks, the bar and liar parlour were both lit up ; but there was no proof of anyone being ready to open the door when a customer desired admission. (See Jefferson v. Richardson 35 J.T. 470). The conviction was quashed because there was no proof of ingress and egress of customers. In the present case nothing can lie clearer than that the defendant was ready and willing to open, and did open the door, to intending customers, and there was ample proof of both ingress and egress. For these reasons neither of the cases cited governs the present. Defendant must be convicted, and, as he has been several times warned, and it is imperative that those shopkeepers who obey the law should bo protected, the tine will be a substantial one, and is fixed at £5. Notice of appeal was given.

A case of disputed liability came before the Supreme Corrt, Invercargill, last week when P. L. Gilkison and W. Levis s::sd John Crowther fur £'lll 13s 3d, being defendant's share a3 a direct); of the Uokoraki G. M. Co. of the bank overdraft paid by plaintiffs.—Mr W. Y. 11. Hall for plaintiffs, Mr John Moffett for the defendant. The case was heard before the judge alone. Mr Hall said the plaintiffs and defendant wore directors, and the defendant was present at a meeting of directors when the overdraft was authorised. The money was guaranteed to the bank by the plaintiffs and spent for the benefit of the company. It was a loan by the bank under the Mining Act, 1897, clause 6, under which the defendant as a co-direc-tor was liable for his share, one-third, now claimed by plaintiffs. Mr Moffet said that defendant had resigned from his position as director, and in any case, :• s the company ceased in 1900, the defe"dant wis not liable for any debts. Even if he was liable to contribute towards this money it was only pro rata according to the shares he held. Mr Moffett also submitted that the action should have been brought in the Warden's Court. His Honor said the question was nut defendant's liability a-- a shareholder but as a director, and the other points raised by Mr Moffett were also over-ruled. On the question of jurisdiction the law on the point was referred to. —Mr Hall submitted that this action could not have been brought under the Warden's Court, as it was not a contract relating to milling, but a contract for a loan of money from the bank. Moreover, the contract was not entered into within a mining district. — His Honor said if lie was satisfied he had no jurisdiction, he would simply transfer it to tiie Warden's Court. His Honor, after some further argument, said this money was obtained by the authority of the directors, including the defendant. The plaintiffs bad proved that the money was borrowed under section 6 of the Mining Companies Amendment Act. 1897, and that they hid paid the debt, and they now sought indemnity, not under any provisions of any Stature, but under the equitable doctrine of indemnity and contributions by statutory co-sureties. They weie clearly entitled to succeed unless there was anything in the point raised as to jurisdiction, which depended upon the construction of section 2(31 of the Mining Act, 1891, which provided that the Warden's Court should hive jurisdiction, made exclusive by section 205, concerning debts, contracts, dispute", etc., of any kind relating to mining. He thought this could not be slid to be a dispute relating to mining. It was a dispute as to a debt contracted between a company and a bank and not in any mining district. It was true that the debt was incurred in connection with a mining company, and that the remedy of the plaintiffs was by the Mining Companies Act, but that did not seem to bring it within sub-section 8. The test of course was -Could the bank have sued in the Supreme Court ] If the bank could have sued here, the indemnity and contributions could also be sued here. Cases which came under sub-section 8 were exclusively triable in the Warden's Court. This was an ordinary action against a debtor for a debt in the ordinary course of business. As far as he could see, in Wells v. drew, quoted by counsel for the defendants it does not support that view. The case was even more intimately connected with mining, ami Mr Justice Williams held that the action was not triable before the Warden. Judgment would therefore be for plaintiffs for the amount claimed, with costs as per scale, disbursements and witnesses' expenses.