CALLS ON SHARES

New Zealand Herald, Volume LXXII, Issue 22145, 26 June 1935, Page 14

CALLS ON SHARES

CLAIM BY COMPANY UNUSUAL LEGAL ACTION MONEY PAID INTO COURT A peculiar legal position was argued before Mr. Justice Fair in the Supreme Court yesterday, when a creditor whose claim had been paid into Court sought to force the defendant to proceed with his actign. The creditor was International Concessions, Limited (Mr. Goldstine), who had claimed from the defendant (Mr. Grant) £75, the amount of calls due on shares in International Concessions, Limited. The defendant had paid into Court £B9 to provide for the calls and legal expenses and had deposited a further £2O to meet the expenses of removing the case to the Supreme Court. Mr. Grant supported and Mr. Goldstine opposed a motion to remove the action from the list. One reason for Mr. Goldstine's opposition was his allegation that the case was a test one on which others depended. Mr. Goldstine said a summons for the amount claimed had been issued against the defendant last February. Several other similar actions were commenced at the same time. Steps were taken to have the action removed to the Supreme Court on the ground that it was a test action, and the other hundred actions were adjourned accordingly. Grounds of Opposition

A fixture was obtained for June 12, but the money was paid into Court on June 11. The defendant had had since March to make up his mind what he was going to do. If this question was not tested now the other cases would be delayed for three months. Others in a similar position were not going to pay until this had been decided.

His Honor: This lamb has gone willingly to the slaughter. I do not know why you want to get judgment against him. Mr. Goldstone said defendant had left his decision to the last day. Counsel's opposition to the removal of the action from the list was based on two grounds. First, the amount paid into Court was not sufficient. A sum of £1 14s in disbursements had not been included, and costs had been calculated on the lower instead of the higher scale. A total sum of £14,000 was involved, and the plaintiff had, through no fault of his own, been put to considerable expense in briefing senior counsel. No provision had been made for the costs of adjournment in the Magistrate's Court. His Honor's Decision Secondly, the Court should decide the particular point raised in the action, which was whether the objects of the company were illegal and whether it was therefore precluded from recovering debts of this kind. The company had filed a refusal to accept the amount paid into Court. Counsel submitted that in Jhe interests of justice the defendant should not be allowed to back out at the last moment, but that the case should be heard and determined. His Honor said that if the action went on the defendant might say he had paid the amount demanded and was not going to argue it. Would the Court be expected to decide on the argument of one side? He did not think this was a case in which the defendant should be obliged to go on. The position was that there was nothing for the Court to decide except the costs. His Honor made an order for the amount paid into Court to be paid over and for an additional £8 in various costs! to be paid out of the £2O deposited with the Court.