THE APPEAL COURT. Wellington, October 30.

Otago Witness, Issue 1967, 5 November 1891, Page 12

THE APPEAL COURT. Wellington, October 30.

In the Appeal Court to-day the case of the Bank of New Zealand r. Rose was argued. This ■ was an appeal from the decision of Mr Justice Williams. The decision 'appealed from was given in the proceedings in liquidation of three gold mining companies known as the Nenthom Consolidated Quartz Mining Company (Limited), the Victoria Quartz Mining Company (Limited), and the Break o' Day Quartz Mining Company. These three companies entered into arrangement by deed under which they jointly purchased and erected and worked a battery for quartz crushing. The battery was managed by a board consisting of directors from each corn* pany. Eaoh company had its own separate account with the Bank of New Zealand at Naseby, and the battery board also kept an account with the same bank. The cost of battery ■ and expenses of working it were contributed from time to time, but the Victoria Company contributed far more than its fair share, the Break o' Day far less than its fair share, the Nenthorn Company about its proper share. Contributions were paid by cheque on the separate account* of each company with the bank. The three companies went into liquidation simultaneously, the battery board's account being at the time Blightly in credit, but each of the separate accounts of the companies largely overdrawn. The three overdrafts had eaoh been incurred without proper steps being taken to enable borrowing powers to be exercised, but practically the whole of the amounts overdrawn were drawn for the purpose of being applied and were applied in payment of existing liabilities incurred by the battery board, and the bank claimed to be subrogated to the claims of creditors who had been paid out of the moneye advanced by the bank. Mr Justice Williams held that the arrangement for working the joint battery was ultra vires of the Companies Act, that the liabilities incurred by the battery board were therefore improperly incurred, that the bank had notice of the manager at Naseby being a director and a member of the board, and that the bank had therefore no right to be eubrogated to claims which it paid with notice that they had been so incurred. He therefore disallowed the proofs put in by the bank. The argument for the appellants occupied all day. That on behalf of the liquidator is to^Jae taken on Monday.

In the Divorce Courtfon Saturday, in the case Colvllle v. Colville and Gunn, a decree nhi was granted, with costs against the co -respondent, who is dispenser at the Southland hospital.