LAW AND POLICE.

New Zealand Herald, Volume XXIII, Issue 7827, 22 December 1886, Page 3

LAW AND POLICE.

■»» - SUPREME COURT.— Judge's Chambers. Tub." [Before His Honor Mr. Justice Ward.l Probate.—Probate was granted in the wills of William Payne and Henry Scallon. An application re the will of Patrick Murphy was adjourned. Administration.—Mr. Dufaur moved that letters of administration be granted in the estate of Margaretta Eleonora Martha Bedg« good. Th« application was granted, the applicant, the husband of the deceased, to enter into his own bonds. New Zealand Smklting Company.— Buddie applied for a summons to rectify register, and amend list of contributories. Mr. Button appeared in support of the motion, and Mr. J. P. Campbell appeared for the official liquidator, and Mr. Alex* ander to oppose the motion. An affidavit had been filed the previous afternoon, and Mr. Button had objeoted to it, unless he was allowed to reply to the statements contained in it without having to file an affidavit. Mr. Button read the affidavit of Mr. Adam Porter. It appeared that Mr. Porter had sold certain shares in the company to Mr. William Fraser; of Grahamstown, but the directors deferred to register the transfer, although it was presented by the purchaser himself, and all fees were duly paid, and that unnecessary delay took place, and subsequently a resolution was passed to wind th« company np voluntarily, and Mr. Porter's name remained on the list of contributories. The affidavit for the defence admitted all the facts, but alleged that Adam Porter knew the purpose for which Colonel Fraser purchased the shares. This was denied by Mr, Porter, who stated that he handed in a transfer of sufficient shares to qualify him as a director, but it was deferred at the same time, and he also denied that he knew that the company would refuse to register to Colonel Fraser. These statements were, by consent, admitted, as if on affidavit. Mr. Button contended that on the affidavit filed, they had shown sufficient to entitle them to the order, and there was nothing alleged which wous disentitle them to a decree. The transaction between Porter and Fraser was complete. He quoted several authorities to show, that it was the duty of the directors to have registered the transfer without unnecessary delay, and that the register should be rectified. Mr. Alexander submitted that it was not a case in which the Court should grant the order. The circumstances were peculiar. Porter sold the shares to Fraser well knowing that he (Fraser) was opposed to winding up the oompany, and he bought the shares to prevent Porter using his influence to wind up the company. Porter was one of the direotors of the company, who deferred the registration of the transfer, and he acted and voted in respect of those shares to have the oompany wound up, and he was not at the time registered for any other shares, and it was quite dear Colonel Fraser could not vote in respect of those shares. It transpired, however, that Colonel Fraser was present at the meeting at whioh the resolution was carried to voluntarily wind up the company, also at the meeting at whieh that resolution was confirmed. There was no division, and no poll demanded. Mr. Alexander contended that the case should not be decided summarily, but should go to a jury, His Honor said if any way conld be shown him to bring the matter before a jury, he would do so, if a substantial issue of fact was set up, Mr. Button denied that Porter was aware at the time be sold the shares to Fraser that he could not get the benefitof his shares, and that the directors would not register the transfer. Mr. Campbell contended that no ground had been shown why the register should be altered, and the parties should be left to their own remedy. His Honor said in the face of the conflicting statements he did not see his way to decide now. He would adjourn the application till further affidavits were filed. He would much prefer that the case should go to a jury. The application was then adjourned until the first Chamber.' day after the holidays. Rating Act, 1882.—-In re Rating Act, 1882, and the application of Stewart Bates. Mr. Dufaur moved for an order directing the public trustee to pay to him the balance of proceeds of sale of allotment 66, parish of Waimana. The matter was, after some argument, allowed to stand over. Hopkins v. Sdmptkr.—Mr. Earl moved for a commission to be appointed to take evidence in Oamaru and Dunedin. Mr. Napier appeared for the plaintiff, but did not oppose the application, bnt pointed out that the names of all the witnesses were not s;iven in the summons. Mr. Earl said he could give the names now, having been supplied with them since the summons was issued. He oould supply Mr. Napier with the list. Mr. Napier submitted that His Honor should fix a date for the return of the commission, so that no unnecessary delay might take place in the action. His Honor said there was very little onanoe of getting the esse on for the 17 th of January. Mr. Earl applied that the registrar at Dunedin be appointed, and Mr. Crawford, solioitor, Oamaru, making two commissioners. Mr. Napier suggested that the order be granted, and no commissioners named. The order was granted accordingly. Levy v. Duncan and Others —Mr. Griffiths moved for leave to defend in this action on behalf of one of the defendants, John Dunoan. Mr. Campbell submitted that if the order was granted, security should be given. His Honor saw no reason why security should not be given, bat Mr. Griffiths said he did not think his ciient could deposit the money in Court, and His Honor asked whether he could not find some one to go security for him. Under the circumstances, His Honor did not call upon defendant to find security, and ordered that the defence be filed on or before the sth of January, and the action to be tried on the 17th. Kalston v. Hornb. — Mr. E. Cooper moved to settle the terms of the order. This case had been before the Court as a civil case, and an order was made that the defendant should render a statement of account of certain trust property, and it was then agreed that the order should be drawn up and submitted at the chamber sittings. The order was adopted. McAbthub and Co. v. Cornwall.—Mr. Campbell moved for a summons to issue execution. Mr. Napier appeared for Mr. Cornwall, and objeoted. This was a motion on behalf of the plaintiffs to issue execution on a memorial of judgment obtained in the High Commissioner's Court at Samoa, on the 30th November, 1881, for £5500, and which has been registered in the Supreme Court of New Zealand. The aotion bad been for certain promissory notes signed by the defendant. Mr. Napier took exception to the summons, which he contended was irregular as it called upon them to show cause why execution should not issue on a judgment of the Supreme Court of Fiji, whereas the memorial filed was a memorial of a judgment of the High Commissioner's Court for the Western Pacific. He submitted that |hey should not be called on to answer an irregular summons. Mr. Cambbell contended that the summons was quite regular, as the case had been taken to the Appeal Court of Fiji in ISB2, and a memorial of the judgment of the Supreme Court of Fiji had been filed, as well as of the High Commissioner's Court. His Honor said the summons, if desired, might be amended, and after some further argument between counsel, the matter was allowed to stand overtill the sittings in January next. Caledonian Low Level Gold Mining Company.—Mr, Button moved that the claims of certain creditors be admitted. After hearing affidavits and argument both claims of Mr. White were admitted. Watchman Printing and Publishing Company.—Mr. Campbell moved for a sum. mons to vary the list of contributories. Mr, James Russell appeared to oppose the motion. Mr. Campbell said that certain allegations were made in the affidavit, and some of these were denied in the answering affidavit, but others were not, and he presumed they were admitted. He quoted several authorities in support of the application, the question at issue—whether the posting of a noticc of the allotment of shares was sufficient when it was alleged that it never reached the party to whom it was addressed. It was finally decided to allow the application to stand over for farther affidavit to be filed. Harry Neil Smith (a bankrupt).—.Mr. James Russell moved for an order of adjudication on the petition of the Kamo Colliery Company. The application was granted subject to an affidavit being filed, and an application was allowed for to-morrow (Wednesday). Land Transfer Act.—ln the matter of the Land Transfer Act, and re application of James Alexander Pond, Mr. Cotter moved for the summons to the District Land Registrar to show cause why certificate of title should not be granted. Mr. Button appeared for the Land Kegi&trar, This wa

an application made under the Rating Act calling on the Registrar to issue certificate of title. The facts are as follows:—Under the provisions of the Rating Act certain land had been put up for sale for non - payment 'of rates, and the applicant beoame the purchaser. He applied to the Registrar for a certificate of title, which this officer refused, on the ground that, until the production of satisfactory evidence of the non-payment of the rates on the land, and of compliance with the provisions of the Act, prior to the sale by the Trustee to the applicant, he could not islue a certificate of title. Mr. Cotter argued that, under sections 43, 44, and 45 of the Act, but more especially section 44, the Registrar could not refuse, seeing that the Legislature had said that he was not bound to inquire as to the property. Mr. Button said the only doubt arose as to whether the words in the section of the statute are strong enough to inolude illegality. His Honor held that under the section quoted the purchaser was protected, and the Act gave him a title. He therefore ordered that the Land Registrar register the applicant's title. No order was made regarding costs.

DISTRICT COURT.— Tuesday. [Before 11. G. Sath Smith, Esq., Judga.] Moses v. Slat or.—ln this case, Mr. Theo. Cooper for the defendant sought to set aside the judgment of the Court for £30 Is, and that the picture should be returned to plaintiff in payment of costs. Mr. E. W. Burton opposed the application, and after considerable argument His Honor ordered the picture to be deposited in Court, and the amount of costs to be paid by the defendant and the case to be adjourned till next Court day. [Before H. G. Beth Smith, Esq., Judge, and a Jury of Jour.] T. Wilson v. Wilson, Harroway and Co.Claim £100 as damages for non-delivery of 40 tons of Green Island flour. Mr. W. Rigby for plaintiff, and Mr. Theo. Cooper for the defendants. The claim set out that on May 27 last the defendants sold to the plaintiff, 40 tons of their Green Island flour for the suim of £8 10a per ton f.o.b. at Dqnedin, net cash on demand. The plaintiff had applied te the defendants for delivery of the flour and a considerable time had elapsed to entitle the plaintiff to have the same delivered. Wilson had offered, and had always be* n ready and willing to pay to the defendants the price of the flour. The defendants hacl failed, and refused to deliver the said flour to the plaintiff. A sum of £100 was claimed as damages, being the amount of the difference between the contract price, £$ 10s per ton, and the market price of suoh flour, on July 29. The defence was a general denial of the contract. It seemed that notice had been given by the defendants to the plaintiff that they were oversold, and unable to give delivery of the flour to the plaintiff, and that their agent had sold without their permission. At the conclusion of the plaintiff's oase Mr. Cooper moved for a nonsuit, on the grounds that Patterson, who had signed the sale note, was not authorised to do so; secondly, that it did not contain all the terms of the contract ; thirdly, that It was made after the revocation of the agent's authority. Mr. Rigby replied. His Honor considered the last point taken by Mr. Cooper was fatal to the plaintiff's case, and therefore without deciding the other question raised he must nonsuit the plaintiff. Mr. Cooper applied for costs, which were allowed at £11 lis. Robinson v. Atjbtkalasian Live Stock Assurance Society.—Mr. Theo. Cooper for plaintiff; Mr. Rigby for defendants. It was agreed to take this case on the first Court-day in the New Year.

POLICE COURT.— [Before Measr«. J. G. Cotb«tt and S. Y. Colling, J.P.'a.] The Onehunoa Fir*.—James Saunders Gibbons appeared on bail on the remanded charge of setting fire to a cooperage at Onehunga, with intent to defraud the Union Insurance Company, on or about Ootober 19. Mr. T. Cotter prosecuted, and, by arrangement with Mr. H. Campbell, who appeared for the accused, the case was further remanded till Wednesday, December 29, and bail was farther enlarged. Druhkenness.—A man was fined 5s and costs for a first offence. Orchard Robbery. — Ernest Williams (14), Walter Shannon (13), John Alfred Wallace (9), and Alfred Williams (9) were charged with stealing a quantity of fruit, valued at 5«, the property of filias Barm, on December 17. All pleaded guilty, with the exception of Alfred Williams. It seemed that the orchard was in Stanley-street, Arohhill, and the lad Shannon was seen to leave the orchard with apples in his hat. The police were sent for, and on the information of the lad shannon the other boys ware arrested. It seemed the apples were overhanging a fence at the time. Constable Clarke, Kate Lovegrove, and Elias Burns were examined. As the evidence was not clear, the Bench dismissed the case with a caution to the lads. ®Lircbny.Edward Wilson, on remand from Monday, was charged with stealing a pair of oars and rowlooks, valued at 10s, the property of J. H. Upton, on November 30, and alto with stealing a belt valued at 2s, the property of Turley and Abbott, on December 12. The accused pleaded not guilty. J. H. Upton deposed that he had a boatshed at Shelly Beach, and on November 30 a pair of oars and rowlocks were taken from the shed. Entrance was gained by prizing open a board, and getting into the shed. It required considerable force to get in. A lad named Ussher brought the oars to him on •Sunday, and he identified them as his property, Robert Speers, a lad, was in the company of Wilson on the day in question, and the latter broke open the paling, and got out the oars and rowlocks, and threw them into a punt. Constable Graham arrested the accused upon the information of Mr. Upton. In the second charge, Constable Graham deposed that he found an elastic belt on the accused's waist. William Turley, draper, Jervois Road, deposed that he missed twelve belts on Dec. 12, and the belt in question was one of those he missed. Robert Speers stated that he did not sell the belt in question to Wilson. A lad named George Laird was called by the acoused. He saw Heme take down a box of belts from the shop, and Speers subsequently sold the belt to Wilson for 6d. Wilson was there, and ran after Heme when he took the belts. The Bench regretted that the accused should have been before the Court four times previously, and had been flogged onoe without having any effect. Sentenced to three months' hard labour.