SUPREME COURT.

Lyttelton Times, Volume LXXX, Issue 10108, 5 August 1893, Page 3

SUPREME COURT.

IN CHAMBERS. Fbiuay, August 4. (Before his Honor Mr Justice Denniston.) BE HUGH WRIGHT.

His Honor gave judgment in the case of Hugh. Wright, a lunatic. The present proceedings had, ha said, been commenced by what was called a supplementary petition of the daughter and next of kin to the lunatic. The prayer of the petition wag that two orders of the Court be rescinded, and that direction bo given for the appointment of some fit and proper person other than the Public Trustee to be committee of the estate. The grounds had been set out to be that the Trustee had not administered the estate in the beat possible manner. His Honor had no hesitation in refusing to think of the main allegations, which were directed to the past administration of the office of the Public Trustee,as there seemed to be no grounds for interfering with the control of the Trust Office oifcr the estate, which would not apply to uny other estate under its management. The petitioner further claimed that certain property should have come to the estate, which through the negligence of the Trustee had not come. The allegations were of the must general character, and supported only by the general verifying affidavit of the petitioner, while almost the whole of the matters referred to were necessarily outside of her cognizance. Some of the allegations had been abandoned during the argument, and it had been admitted that shrinkage in values had caused the diminution of the estate in certain respects. The payment of the £3OO mortgage by the Public Trustee had been in no way prejudicial to the equities between the parties, or had in any way injured the estate. General statements that excessive sums had been paid for legal expenses were valueless unless supported by specific instances and proper evidence, and having gone through the papers of the much litigated matter of the claim of the lunatic’s brothers he could not see how any person in the position of the Public Trustee could have accepted the claim without a judicial investigation. The trustee, his Honor considered, was clearly wrong in paying the sum of JE32<t without taxation in the case of Di Eago v. the Public Trustee. Probably both parties would consent to an order to the Eegistrar in Wellington to tax the bill. Eegarding the application for an order for the payment of an allowance to the petitioner, his Honor said he could not make an order. The case was in many respects an unfortunate one. The petitioner was the only child of the lunatic, who, but for his lunacy, would have probably been able and willing to provide for her. She was a married woman living with her husband, and both were in delicate health and in actual want. The net income of the property (after providing for the lunatic’s maintenance of 10s per week) was £6l 4s lid. Against this there were outstanding liabilities of .£354. The petitioner had entered into many ill-advised proceedings, which had led to coats being paid out of the estate to the amount of £SOO. If the Public Trustee should see his way to make out of the very small surplus some weekly payment for actual maintenance, his Honor would he happy to make any order sanctioning such arrangement. He would reserve the question of costs. MERCANTILE FINANCE AND ACJENCT | COMPANY, LIMITED. j His. Honor gave his decision upon the

case of the Mercantile Finance and Agency Company, wherein an application had been made for the appointment of inspectors. The power of inspectors was, he said, very great and inquisitorial, so such an appointment could not be made unless on suspicion of the gravest mismanagement and misconduct on the part of the management. The mere fact of serious loss was not a correct ground: and it must be shown that the majority had acted against the benefit of the minority. The object of the section under which the case was brought was obviously intended for the protection of a minority ’of the shareholders who might ho controlled by a majority who might be unfairly managing the Company. The facta in the case were in the main undisputed, and on being formed into a new Company, the Company had only paid one dividend of 10 per cent and admittedly lost some .£19,000. It had practically given up business, existing only to collect its unrealised securities. This was, of course, disastrous to the shareholders. He had held previously that they were entitled to the very fullest information, and an exceptionally full report had been prepared. There were no charges in the present petition of mismanagement except such as were implied in the heavy losses sustained, which losses were admitted and shown in the report. The real grounds of the application were on allegations of fraud on the part of the Company, and fraudulent misstatements in the prospectus. Obviously if this were true it would be no ground for an order under section 00. An enquiry on such points could not bo termed an investigation into the affairs of the Company. If grounds for investigation had boon otherwise shown, it would be no objection that such investigation might incidentally supply materials for an action against the promoters. But the grounds of the application must rest on the management of the Company itself. Unless the mere fact of ruinous loss was in itself such a uround, the application could not succeed. There should, he considered, bo some definite allegation of misconduct; some suggestion that the Directors c.r the majority©? the shareholders were concealing things, or wore acting unfairly to the minority. This was particularly the case when the Company had practically ceased to ba a going concern, and existed merely for realisation. If it were merely allowing full access to the books and documents he (his Honor) would have had no difficulty, because under the circhmstances he could not conceive any information as to the management of the Company to which the shareholders would not bo entitled. But the inquiry now asked for was inquisitorial, with ]oower to interrogate on oath. He waa anxious to do nothing to weaken or restrict what might be so useful a protection to a minority, but every case must stand on its merits, and he did not feel justified in permitting it to ba used except on clear grounds and for the purposes contemplated by the Act. The application would be refused. THE JOCKEY CLUB CASE. The matter of O’Brien v. Boyle (Mr Lane. to move, and Mr Kippenbsrger contra ) was further adjourned to nest Friday. executors’ commissions. Orders for executors’ commissions were made in the cases of W. Goodwin (Mr Nalder), W. Norman (Mr Nalder) and Robert H. Rhodes (Mr Beswick). WH. JOHN IEB. His Honor dismissed the summons in the matter of the Habeas Corpus Acts, and in the matter of William John Lae, notice of a motion for a writ of habeas corpus, SPECIAL JURY. His Honor granted a special jury of four in the case of Scarlett v. Conway (Mr Harman). NEW BRIGHTON TRAMWAY COMPANY. Mr T. S. Weston, senior, appeared to move in the case of the New Brighton Tramway Company v. Knight, to amend the statement of defence. Mr Cay gill appeared for the plaintiff, and pat in a statement of claim. After argument his Honor reserved his decision.