LAW AND POLICE.

New Zealand Herald, Volume XXXIII, Issue 10036, 24 January 1896, Page 6

LAW AND POLICE.

MAGISTRATE'S COURT.-Thorsdav. [Before Mr. H. W. Northcroft, S.M.I JiTDGMKNT Summonses.—Judgment for plaintiff, with costs, was given in the following undefended cases John Burns and Co. v. H. Anderson, £15 IBs 2d, costs £2 Is 6d ; Macky, Logan, Steeu, and Co. v. William Edwards, £18 lis Id, costs £1 15s 6d; A. J. Entrican and Co. v. Hemi Tamiluna, £12 2s Bd, costs £8 10s 6d; George Foster v. James Misson, £1 15s 6d. DEFENDED CASKS. _ A Mining Tiunsaotion.-Tlus was a case in which Mrs. Sophia Walker Bought to recover the amount of £12 10s from Robert Z.Garrett, said money having been paid-to Garrett for 500 shares iu the flauraki Gulf Gold Mining Company, on the 13th day of September, 1895. The plaintiff was represented by Mr. if. McGregor, and Mr. 8. Hesketh appeared for the defendant. In submitting the case for his client, Mr. McGregor contended that at t.!io time of the purchase being made Mrs. Walker was under the impression that sho was buying into a company that had been already floated, and that the words " not floated," which now appeared in the transfer of the shares, had been inserted in the receipt given her after the bargain was concluded; also that as there was actually no such company as the Huuraki Goldmiuing Company in existence at that time, the said transfer was consequently void, and no sale had been affected, therefore plaintiff was entitled to a refund of the money paid to defendant. Sophia Walker being sworn, gave evidence relating to the transaction betweeu herself and defendant, and claimed that the impression given her was that she was buying into an established compauy, and not into a qfiicern that had neither been floated nor granted by the Warden. After the purchase had been concluded, she discovered that the company had not been floated, and called on Mr. Garrett for an explanation, and he informed her that the application would in all probabilty be granted shortly. Subsequently sho discovered that the application had been withdrawn. The defendant, who was then examined relative to the sale of the shares, stated that he made Mrs. Walker aware of the facts when the bargain was effected. They had been chatting together over mining matters in his shop in Queen-street, and he had informed the plaintiff that he had an interest in one or two things not yet floated, one of which was the Hauraki Gulf Coinpauy at Tiki, Coromaudel. She asked him what his interest was, and he said that it was equal to 1500 shares, and on being further asked if he would sell any of them he decided to lot her have 500 at 6d per share. Tho money was paid over at the time, and he gave Mrs. Walker a receipt as follows t—" Received from Mrs. Walker the sum of £12 10s for 500 shares in the Hauraki Gulf Gold Mine,'' and in the same line the words "not floated." The receipt referred to was subsequently destroyed by witness when the transfer was made out, Mrs. Walker being present at the time. Several other witnesses were also examined for the defence, but nothing of importance was adduced. Mr. Hesketh, in submitting tho case for the defence, said that Mr. Garrett had acted in a straightforward manner throughout the transaction, no concealment had been made of the fact that the company had not yet been floated, and that at the time of the business being done he was himself under the impression that there was a good thing in the proposed compauy. His Worship reserved decision, but in commenting on the general aspect of the case, said it was one of considerable importance to the mining community, there being a large number of speculators who had purchased shares under the same conditions, and doubtless with the same results as was the case with Mrs. Walker. It,was entirely a point of law, and the whole case devolved itself on the words, "not floated," which, to his way of thinking, conveyed the idea that a property had been acquired, although it had, perhaps, not yet been floated. Apparently, at the time of the transaction between the plaintiff and defendant, the latter had absolutely nothing to sell, a license not having been applied for or granted, therefore he should say that "out of nothing, nothing could come." It was on these points that the issue was to be determined. • "