SUPREME COURT.—In Basco

New Zealand Herald, Volume IX, Issue 2543, 20 March 1872, Page 6

SUPREME COURT.—In Basco

TUESDAY, MARCH 19. [Before Hid Honor Sir O. A. Arney, Knight, Chief Justice.] His JToxoit took his scat on thn bench at 11 o'clock. ArnciT-ATE JrmsmoTioN- op the Court. —Mr. Mucd mild, before the business commenced, asked the Court to rule how fartlie appellate jurisdiction of the Court whs affected by the 117 th clause of the Goldfields Act, 1871. The facts upon which he prayed the. opinion of the Court, were the following :—Tn the present, case the suit was brought into the Warden's Court-in October, IS7I, and notice was given, and leave, obtained to appeal in IVcfinlier, IS7I. Allhoiiijli the Goldfields Act of IS7I ms passed in the. middle of that YI-Ml-, yet. il did not conn- into operation until ill,- 22: id of January, 1572. Its effect was to repeal all the previous Guhlficlds Acts of 1565-6, Ac. These proceedings were taken u der the Act of IMGfJ. By the clause above cited it was required to know whether, iu the opinion of the Court, it took away the remedy by appeal in nil eases iiflVeting to rights in land. The point he wished to lay before the Court w.is that there appeared to be no provision in the Act ol 1572 for cases which were pending, and if they were so whether the appellate jurisdiction in a case like the pri scut was not • ;li ,briber gone.—Mr. James Russell was of opinion that, the words " rights, titles, nnd interest.-'" -"vered all rights whatever which 'xUteu at. the time of tile passing of the Act, and though the previous Acts were repented it, could not have been the intention of the Legislature to take away tile remedy for the infringement of rights which arose under the prior statute. — Mis Honor said lie would hear the appeal, [le did not- think it cmiiJ have been the. intention of the Legislature to deprive, the possessors of " rights, titles, or interests" of the legal powers they possessed ; that it did not take away the remedy; that in the present ca-e the suit was commenced under the Act if ISIW;, and having so begun, the proceedings might be continued under the same Act.

WAI.KKU V. lIUSTEK, EVKSINO SXAU GOLD Mimm> Company.--Mr. James Russell appeared for the appellant, Mr. Miicdonald for the respondents. —The suit was brought into ■h-.. Warden's Court, for encroachment, and the plaintiff, who is legal manager of the company, on behalf of certain shareholders, was mud- t tie liquidator, and acted in that

rapacity. Fur the defence it, was urged t.lmt ;ho directors α-tvd for the benefit of the company; that they h:id liol exceeded the powers conferred upuu them by law ; and Unit tlie arrangement resulted in increased profit to tin , shareholder.', —11 sum of £-75 having hi'i-n divided among them. —The first point taken wus, that there "'as no contiact, in Unit « parole contract, was void, and if there Was a contract it wan fraudulent. The directors of Pie company, it was alleged, let portions of tlic mint' on tribute. It was not denied that they had the power 10 let the mine on tribute, li'ii it was said that i:i tin's ease the directors lot to themselves. ; and it was argued by the learned eou::Sel for \!ie appellant thai, a contract c»f this kind was vuid, by reason of fr 1. The rent, to be puid was 10 per cunt. of the gross proceeds. Il w.is slated tliai the Iftliru in this case was not advertised, as it should hav." been, a cordinj: to usage ; that it was dor.,- in secret, the shaikh-.lders not being i-on-i.lled, or niii.ie aequ liiited with what was urop.i-ed lo be done. — For the respondents il was eon'ei'.dcd tlia , t'ie directors had a right to ii'iike the roi.traet ; '!:at money received u ntir such contract had been received by the

ilireclorn, and enlirci in the company's oo.tks to I lie credit of the company; that the p'.ainlilf receiveil •.'. ben.'lit from the expenditure of this money. It transpired diirinu the proeceiiini;.-, tlml the nunner in which this tribute was managed was that I he money was received by the company, and that I In- U) per cent, wns distrihuU-d.—Uis Honor, in his ju'lfinient, wii.a of opinion that in this c:iso tin; decision of 1 lie Warden must be reversed. The poiition of the company was Lais : —The company having become insolvent, was in process of winding up. The Official Agent, as was hid duty, went lo co'leet the Hu found that u portion of Hie mine, hud been h-t under this deed. The plaintiff wiid this was io deed ; —that, was bad under the Statute of Frauds. The dci-d was one which, the Court having in view Iho rigid rule of the Court of Chancery, could not sanction. It, was a deed by uhien directors let lo a number of their own body, ii purliun of the property of the shareholders. If there wasanv profit'lo them, the same profit belonged to the shareholders What, was beneficial to them was beneficial to the company, and mi their capacity no directors what was beneficial to the company (hey could not. appropriate t> themselves ur any p-irt of their body. The only cpic-l wiili Ihe Court *a- whi I her he should "reverse" or vury the decision, s . ftj to sfin' i: back to the Warden. Uv felt always rclcc. .1 lo disturb tho decision- of the Wardens, which were for th<; most part based on common sense. lie would be h.ipj.y to hear c<'iinsel as to how far he could vary the decision. To the Court the simplest way appeared lo be, seeing that no injury would be caused by it, to reverse the decision.—Deei.-iwii icvirsed -.ccordiugly.