A MINING CASE IN THE SUPREME COURT.

Otago Witness, Issue 1934, 19 March 1891, Page 13

A MINING CASE IN THE SUPREME COURT.

(Before his Honor Mr Justice Williams.) THE GAIXANT TIPPBBABT QUARTZ MUSING OOMPANT. (APPELLANT) V. BWBN ALEXANDER CAMBBON (bBSPOWDENT). An appeal from the decision of Mr Nugent Wood at Arrowtown. Mr F. R. Chapman appeared for the appellant company, and Mr S. Solomon for the respondent. In the court below the respondent obtained judgment for £34 14s upon a claim against the company of £88 ss, for remuneration as a director attending meetings of directors. Mr Chapman stated the case for the appellant company, and was proceeding to argue it — Mr Solomon said he must admit that he could not see any possible foundation for the judgment. He did not wish to interrupt his learned friend, but he thought it would save time to mention this. He could only say he admitted that directors could only be paid by the expressed or implied authority of shareholders, and there was nothing in the case he could see to justify that. On the facts as stated he must submit to judgment, but the case was so peculiar that it might be proper to send it back to the magistrate. His Honor : If there was any suggestion that the case was not fully stated, it would be the proper course to ask to send it back to the magistrate ; but if the facts are other than those stated the respondent must necessarily be aware of that. The case is one which not uncommonly happens where a magistrate in stating a case on appeal sets out the facts at length, and the contention of the appellant is that taking any view of the facts fs set out, tbe magistrate was not in law entitled to find for tbe respondent. I do not think there can be any question that there was no justification of the present decision. The appeal, therefore, will be allowed, with costs lOgs, and disbursements.