SUPREME COURT.

Manawatu Standard, Volume LIV, Issue 287, 1 November 1934, Page 4

SUPREME COURT.

DISCONTINUANCE OF ACTION. The question whether a case in which Claude Alackie, farmer, of Kumenoa, was asking for an order striking his name off the register of the New Zealand Co operative AVool Alarlceting Association, Ltd., with a refund of share money paid, should come forward or be discontinued after being set down for hearing, was argued before His Honour Air Justice Blair in the Supreme Court at Palmerston North, yesterday afternoon.

Plaintiff, in his statement of claim, set out that on Alarch 23, 1932, he agreed to take up fifty shares in a company known as the New Zealand Co-operative Scouring and Carbonising Company, Ltd. He alleged that he had been induced to take up these shares because of a statement in the prospectus that the company intended to erect a wool-scouring, carbonising and cleaning plant at Napier for the convenience of sheep-farmers in Hawke’s Bay, and that these works would be completed by June, 1932. Plaintiff said he had held up his wool clip to forward it to these works, hut between Alarch and April, 1933, the company changed its name to the New Zealand Co-operative AA’ool Alarketing Association, the defendant company, which had not for its primary object the establishment of works for scouring and cleaning wool, and had not erected works for this purpose. The defence was a denial of the allegations. Air H. Rawson, of AA 7 oodville, who appeared for plaintiff, intimated his intention to discontinue the action.

Having regard to the fact that it had only been filed on the previous day, All* E. H. Northcroft, of Auckland, contended that the notice of discontinuance could not be accepted, and the trial should proceed. Though it had secured shareholders throughout the North Island the company had been hampered in its activities through its failure to collect the share capital. Eventually plaintiff had taken action making the case a test one to determine the position of a number of shareholders. Great trouble had been entailed the defence in preparing their case. Air Rawson said the correspondence would indicate that no more than two shareholders were concerned. His Honour decided that the trial had not commenced, the fixing of the date being purely a matter of convenience in Palmerston North. Costs were allowed as on a discontinuance.

VERDICT OE NOT GUILTY. Per Press Association. AUCKLAND, Oct. 31. The trial of Douglas Campbell Purdie, a solicitor, on a charge of negligently driving a motor-car and causing the death of a child, Ruth Beatrice Warburton, was concluded before Mr Justice Fair in the Supreme Court to-day. The case arose from a collision between a car driven by accused and one driven by deceased’s father at an intersection at Remuera on July 29. In summing up, the Judge said the accident was of a type unfortunately frequent. No doubt the death of the child was deplored as deeply bv accused as by anyone else, but it had to be remembered that the person in charge of a motor-car was in charge of a dangerous thing. Since cars had become so common' their danger had perhaps been lost sight of. If often happened that the person charged in such a case was of good character and was a person not likely to be charged with any other offence. The jury, however, must put that thought out of their minds. It was generally known that, where there was any doubt as to which motorist should proceed at a crossing, the benefit was usuallv given to the driver on the right. The jury returned a verdict of not guilty and accused was discharged.