LAW AND POLICE.

New Zealand Herald, Volume XIV, Issue 4789, 23 March 1877, Page 3

LAW AND POLICE.

RESIDENT MAGISTRATE'S COURT.— Thursday. ->'■ ■■•'■ • ,■■-. , ■;; (Before E. 0. Borstow, Ej!j.,E.M.l Tms ordinary weekly sitting of this Court tor hearing and determining small debt claims was; held: thiaj morning, and the following business disposed of :— ETANS V. THE STANDARD INSURANCE COM- ;• ; _ ■■•■■,;■■- f ANY—JUDGMENT. •. , : . His Worship said : I have gone carefully through tho extremely conflicting evidence in. this case, and I have come to the determination that ' jndgmentrnuat pass for the defendant. ..■ •■■■■■ - CtTRE GOLD MINING COMPANY V. TYLER (THE '•''■' 'UWO7 CALLS)—JUDGMENT. .; The case was hoaad -last Court day. Mr Hoeketh for the plaintiff; Mr. E. K. Tyler for;the defendant. The facts of the case were not in dispute, but the claim of the plaintiffs was to recover three calle madaupon dates specified, and .of which notice had been given by letter sent by post, not to the registered address of the shareholder, which was at Grahamstown, but to Auckland. The legal issues raised were that (1.) The calls were improperly made. (2.) That the notice of their having been made should have been eent to the registered abode of the shareholder. (3.) That the notice was not sufficient. .• ; ' , x : ; '-' j Sia Worship delivered judgment asfollows :—I have looked at all the cases quoted by learned counsel in this matter, and at many others which seemed to have a bearing upon the points raised for the defence, but am unable to discover a single caseexaotly on all fours with any of the three points raised. The Howbeach Coalfield which appears to be a leading case, was :decided' upon other grounds, viz. , :—That 'the company was .never, really constituted, and that until this were done the shareholders "were the directors. In the Swansea Dock case v. : Lieyan, one set of directors, were at Swansea and a meeting.called at. London, notified in a paper not circulating at Swansea, appointed contrary to rules a fresh lot of.;-directors,; ~, it was held that the meeting was invalid, and the Swansea directors were''rightly in office. I cannot make Inglis v. Bough or the South Eastern Railway Company v. Ibblethwaite fit the case beyond that in the former a promise to pay calls was held to be an acknowledgment of receipt of notice, while in the Edinburgh Railway Company v. Ibblethwaite Baron Alderson says, "If lie be proprietor, if the calls have- been made in point of fact, and if notice have been given of them, he is liable to pay/ and can have no defence, except by matter subsequent." I hold that while allowing the meetings of the 24th of June, 1875, and the 22nd of June 1876, were irregularly called, as nothing fraudulent is imputed in the calling of these meetings, or in the way in which they were held, that' rule 82 of the Cure Gold Mining Company is sufficient to cover the.defect, and that the calls made are recoverable. The next point is the form of > the notices—objection being taken to their not specifying dates and places for payment. In the Robin Hood Gold Mining Company v. McElwaine, it was held that:—" Where the company's rules require time and place' to be stated in a notice where a call is payable a notice not giving these particulars wa3 insufficient" Other cases have been decided upon the same ground, both/ in Victoria and England ; but the Cure Company's rules are silent on this subject. It appears to me that the Vistorian system of recovering calls by complaint before Justices necessitates specifying a time and place for payment of calls, .. as otherwise j a complaint for- non-payment at a time and place would not lie. In the Barfold Estate Gold Mining Company yr. Craig, the ruling was due notice by! the rules of the company.... In the case before the Court the notice ia in the terms of'the rules, and is sufficient in its language. The third objection is as to the service of notice, which, the rules provide may be personal or by.post to the registered address of jthe shareholder. In this case it is admitted that the, defendant's registered address was Grahamstown, but that he actually lived in ' Auckland, and it is proved that the notices LJeere addressed to_the Jatter pjaoe, rlßJthe ' worid "may" mandatory or merely "'directory? In nearly, all the reported cases to which I. hayp referred the rule has coni taine6i"thes"eadditidnal' words, "or.tothellast J known place of <abode or place of business." Here these words are omitted. The Joint I,Stock Act,. 8 and 9 Vic.yc. 16,U36y rejads "Registered or other known address." T hold that while personal service or by letter to the registered address in sufficient time is proof positive of due notice a notice ; addressed otherwise rffity be sufficient if it lean be shown to have reached the defendant, but then it .must have been poeted so as to allow of the presumption'of being delivered in due course so as to give tha prescribed /petibd of notice to the partyi.affected'; if posted to registered address, the mere jfact of dropping the letter into, constitutes per se a delivery of notice. The defendant admits the receipt of .notices of the sth and j 7th calls, and as these were proved to have been poeted in time to give him after receipt [eutfio'tehti. notice,' I ! must hold these l two 1 calls are due by defendant,, but cannot give judgment for the'6th'call.' UNDEFENDED CASE 3 :, JUDGMENT TOR PLAIH- •■■ ' ■■' ■•'■! - -TUT. '"' ' : Alfred Mitchell v. John McLean, claim £9; James O'Connor v. David Holly, £1 5s 5d ; .Howin and Brother y. Louia Hartmann, £5 10s 9d ; The Corporation of Auckland v. J. H. Q. McLennan, £11 ss;. Parnell Highway Board j, Rebecca Grattan, £1 '--2e jSd ; F. D. Gardener v. John Anderson, £5 9s; J. Devin, t. J. W. Chnrton, £2 14s 6d; James Dempsey.v. Frank Fooks, £21 14e 6d. • ..., THOMAS HDNGEKFORD V. GEORGE COZENS. . Claim, £20. . I Tflis was aiproceeding to lake evidence in a cause to be determined at Hokitikaj in which evidence—of" the defendant, who resides in.Auckland,.was.to be taken. The defendant said' he was sued for the value of a setter dog, which he had claimed to be,his, but of which, by a. series of arrangements 'between the parties, both' appeared to have had at several times the joint use. The detuils of these arrangements were narrated at great length, but are; of no, public, interest. The evidence iwas taken, and order made that it be forwarded tothe.Court at Hokitika. : '■'"'■'■ ; GEORGE LENDRUJI V. CHARLES CECIL EOOKESi ■ Claim. £25.' ' " ' ''' * '''.""" \ .■■. In this case the defendant .hired a •horse and buggy for a week. When the horse|was brought back it was found that its knees were smashed, its back was sore from having been ridden with a bad saddle, and was altogether' •in feo ' bad a state that he could not be used for some. time, and, was reduced in value from £25 ; to £5. The plaintiff was at expense ,to keep the horge unemployed. Judgment" 'for'plaintiff, with costs, £4 ss. j ADJOURNED. W_._C. Dennes. v. IJ.. T. Jqhns,. claim, £28; "Edwin""RrGibspn v.~Morton~and"Chamb'ere, £39 14s 2d ! ; J Maeefield and Co. v. .John "McGarrigle, £1 ss; Adam Laybournj v. Alexander. McGregor, ,£ll 3s 8d; Strange 'v., Robert Carrol; John MoGarrigle r.iVV. :g.>Dennes, £60. '.'.'..", •-., ' b - :: '-: \, s . " y ■:i.ri \ In the-.&se of W. C. Dennes v. Johns,' the action had' been brought, and the, plaintiff; nonsuited; on th'e ground that the was made at a place outside the jurisdiction of the Co'iirtl An action between the same Tpartiesi i: and'Upon mainly' the same facts, was palled. Mr.. Hesketh.for the plaintiff, 1 Mr.' Tyler for defendant,', who objected to the case being heard, on the. ground that the Court had no jurisdiction.; The", quefftionatvthe former atrial was. as; to. whether ''itie contract was mado at; Auckland or in the Waikato. ■•■'■' ' ■:•_•■''• .. ~ His Honor, on the former '.hearing, upon the evidence, decided that the contract ;Was madein the Waikato. It appeared, however, that a telegram by the plaintiff, accepting the contract, had turned up since, the last ~hearing.- ■■ •*■■ —- i ■ ~ * " - ■ Mr. Jjdsher, of the Telegraph Department, produced the telegram. . . 'His Honor decided, that the case could be hea"rd : .' ■■■..■" Adjourned by consent. ABBOT V. PATRICK. Claim £1. ■ • . Mr. Thome for the plaintiff; Mr. Hesketn for the defendant. • ■ ' The plaintiff s>iid that his paddock, sown with maize, was damaged by a mare and foal belonging to the defendant. ,He con-: ; soriiied to take £1 for the damage, and having put the marp'and foal in the pound, gave defendant an "order for. their release. But the defendant 'had countermanded tho '"chequej'-ahd plaintiff did not get the £1. :•;.- Witnesses. Messrs. Hughes aud Maddock, ,'Ji] a:..- ...' -■

were called to show that the fence round plaintiff's paddock was not a legal fence. His Worship, after hearing the evidence, gave judgment for the plaintiff. LBNDRUM V, PEACOCK. Claim, £20. . Mr. Tyler for the plaintiff; Mr. J. Russell for the defendant. The defendant had hired a horse from the plaintiff, bat when it was returned the horse was found to be lame. It appeared that a bolt had gone into the animal's foot, which caused it to be permanently injured. The defence was that there was no negligence on the part of the defendant, and that there was no special contract with the plaintiff, who,, as the hirer, wa3 liable to the ordinary risks in such cases. The contract ;was set up by the allegation that the 'defendant had read a board in the stable - yard giving notice that all persons hiring horses were liable for damage. Messrs. Peacock and Coates proved the fact of the horse becoming lame, that very soon after that was observed means were taken to extract abolt which had got into the horse's hoof ont of it. The horse was being ridden by a lady. - ■ His Worship was of opinion that no negligence had been proved, that a due amount of care had been exercised, and gave judgment for the defendant.. POLICE COURT.—Thursday. [Before J. Macfarlane and G. S. Graham, Esqs. Justices.] Wife-beating.—Jno. Gibbons was charged with assaulting his wife by throwing a chisel at her, and with " threatening to do for her " with an axe, which he had in his hand. Mrs. Gibbons and Sergeant Clark having given evidence, the defendant made, a' Etatement which was to the effect that be was the innocent party, and that it was his wife who had been the aggressor. Notwithstanding this he was bound over in'his' own bond : of £20 arid two sureties of £10 each, or one of £20, to keep the peace for six months. .