GOLDMINING SHARES

New Zealand Times, Volume XXXIII, Issue 7930, 13 October 1911, Page 1

GOLDMINING SHARES

CLAIM FOR INDEMNITY WHAT WAS THEIR SELLING PRICE? At the Magistrate's Court yesterday, before Dr A. McArthur, S.M., Frederick C. Hjorring, sharebroker, of Wellington, proceeded against J. Bridson, storekeeper, Coromandel, to recover as damages the sum of JHI 13s 4d. It was alleged by plaintiff that during April, 1911, acting under instructions from defendant, be purchased for the latter 20C0 ninepcimy shares in tho Eaponga Goldmining Company, Ltd. The shares were tendered to defendant by plaintiff, but Bridson refused to take or pay for them. Some time afterwards plaintiff was called on to pay a call of twopence per share on the shares, and eventually he disposed of them at tho price of sixpence each. The claim of £il 13s 4d was therefore made as indemnity for loss. Defendant’s counsel, Mr P. W. Jackson, applied for a nonsuit on the ground that tho provisions of section 133 of the Stamp Duty Act had not been complied with. He asserted that plaintiff had neglected to stamp the contract note and forward it to defendant within twentyfour hours as stipulated in the Act. On the merits of the case defendant had a good defence. Bridsou’s story was that in April ho instructed plaintiff by telegram to purchase 2000 Kapouga shares at a maximum price of nincpence. A reply was received from Hjorring stating that tho shares wore selling at Hid. Subsequently Bridson saw in an Auckland paper that tho shares wore selling at 7d'aud he again wired plaintiff to act on tho previous instructions. Hjorring replied that ho had purchased the shares at 9cl each, but when plaintiff’s draft arrived ho (defendant) refused to honour it os ho had noticed that on tho date on which plaintiff made the purchase Kaponga shares were selling in Coromandel at 7d. , After some correspondence had passed | plaintiff agreed to accept 8d for tho shares. I’Laiuliff in his evidence declared that hp had agreed to take 3d in, order to have tiro matter settled—it was not because ho was overcharging defendant. Defendant, however, absolutely refused to pay the call of 2d ou the shares and no deal resulted. He was quite willing to pay 8d per share if plaintiff would treat the matter as a neiv contract.

Mr B. J. Pitzgibbon, wbo appeared for plaintiff, said there was no evidence before the court that Kaponga shares were soiling in Coromandel at 7d. The notice appearing in tiro newspaper was not proof that sales were taking place at that price. In • regard' to the nonsuit point counsol contended that as Hjorring was acting for Bridson, tho batter could not roly for a defence upon any technical mistake made by plaintiff. Judgment was reserved.