A SHAREBROKING CASE.

Otago Witness, Issue 1966, 29 October 1891, Page 14

A SHAREBROKING CASE.

At the Resident Magistrate's Court on Friday morning, before Mr Carew, Herbert Park sued Whitworth Russell (of Wanganai) for £37 10s. The plaint note set forth that on or about the 24th February last plaintiff agreed to sell, and defendant to buy, 500 shares in the Equitable Insurance Association ; and that defendant now refuses to complete purchase. Mr Solomon, with him Mr Park, appeared for plaintiff, and Mr Sim for defendant. Mr Solomon said that about the latter end of February last there were some negotiations pending between the Equitable Association and the Union Insurance Company by which the latter should take, over the businesg of the Equitable, and there was a little gambling amongst those people who were, or thought they were, "in the know," as to the value of the Equitable Bhares. Learned counsel read the correspondence between the parties, and said that the contract was contained in the telegrama. There was an admitted breach of contract, and the only questions arising were as to the right of Park to sue and as to the measure v fe^S 8"*8 "* On the firßfc of thes e two points he (Mr Solomon) was compelled to admit that he was ander a misapprehension in naming Mr John Davie as the owner of the shares when sending the final notice of claim to Rassel! When writing he (Mr Solomon) understood that Mr Davie was the seller, but he had since" found that that was not so, and that Mr Davie would not allow his name to be used for the purpose of suing, unless it were associated with that of Mr Park. There was. however, authority in "Evans on Principal and Agent," and "Benjamin on Sales," to show that Park had a right to sue whether he was principal or agent But it was necessary to go further to clear away any possible doubt, and show Park's right to sue on another ground— viz., that he had a speoial interest in the contract. Whether he was a principal or not was open to some question. The shares at that time were worth nothing! and perhaps lesß than nothing, inasmuch as their possession involved a liability. Mr Davie arranged that if Mr Park got persons to buy these and other shares, he should be paid £60, and should have also the price of the shares. Whether under those circumstances Park did not become a principal at the moment of the sale was a matter of doubt, but in any case there was no question as to his right to sue. As to the measure of damages, there could be no doubt that it was the price that Russell agreed to pay—viz., the difference between the value of tfae shares and the money which they would have realised if the contract had been completed. Evidence would be given to show that at the time mentioned the shares were of no value except for the purposes of pure gambling, therefore the damage was the price Russell agreed to buy at. The first witness called was Herbert Park. sharebroker, member of the firm of R. and A. J. Park, who gave evidenoe as to the receipt by and despatch from the firm of certain telegrams and letters covering the contract. Mr Davie had an interest in the shares sold to Russell. The shares were in his name. Witness understood that Mr Davie and others were jointly interested. Witness' arrangement was with Mr James Hogg. All the calls made had been paid on those shares. When witness went to Mr Hogg he said he would give witness £60 if he sold the 1500 shares— £2o if he sold 500 and £60 if he sold 1500; and witness was also to get the amount the shares fetched. Witness received the £60. To Mr Sim : Witness did not know that Mr Davie was interested in the shares till that; gentleman brought him the transfer. The other member of the firm of R. and A. J. Park waa Mr Albert Park, now of Melbourne. Mr Sim read part of a letter from defen&urt,. in which the latter said that he had written to> all parts of the colony, and Mr Park was the only sharebroker who had'taken advantage of his ignorance. After reading the exfcraofc, Mr Sim asked witness what he had to say to that. Witness answered that Russell was acting fik» a child. He asked for a quotation and got ifc. If he did not want the shares why did he ask for them? Evidence as to the shares having no marketprice at the date mentioned was given by Ti Gorse and A. G. Fenwick. Mr Salomon said that he had now brought out all the facts, and that closed plaintiff's case. In view of tbe unexpected answer that there wasanother person interested in the firm, he mustaccept a nonsuit, since amendment could not bemade, and he would start afresh.