THE GOLDEN MASCOTTE CASE.

Otago Witness, Issue 2371, 10 August 1899, Page 23

THE GOLDEN MASCOTTE CASE.

JUDGMENT FOR THE PLAINTIFF COMPANY. Judgment "was given aa follows by" the Stipendiary Magistrate on the- 2nd in the case wherein the Golden Mascotte Company sued J. K. Simpson (Wetherstones) for JESO, being application and allotment money on 200 shares, Mr W. C. MacGregor appearing for plaintiffs, and Mr Woodhouse for defendant: — The main question is whether Mr Neil was authorised by defendant to apply for 200 shares on his behalf or whether, having applied for them, defendant acquiesced in the application. Mr Neil has sworn to the details of a conversation he says he had with the defendant at Wetherstones, following, he says, other conversations they had in reference to the formation of a company to work a claim at the Upper Taieri. He says he explained to Simpson that if he went on the board of directors he would get the same number of paid-up shares as the other directors — namely, 75 shtires each, and that he mentioned the names of the proposed directors. He says that he told Simpson that he would not put hiir down for less than 200 contributing shares, and Simpson replied : " That is a good number, is it not?" and he (Neil) answered: "Yes, a good number; but it is a good thing," and Simpson said " It will be all right." There was further conversation, and towards the end of it Neil says he told Simpson that in the event of Simpson going on the board of directors he would apply for 200 shares for him, and Simpson said : " That will be all right." If that conversation took place there is clear authority to Neil to apply for 200 shares for defendant ; but Simpson denies that he ever had an 3' conversation with Neil about the claim, the company, taking shares in the company, or about being a director, or in reference to promoters' shares. He absolutely denies that any such conversation took place, or that he gave any authority to Neil to apply for shares for him. He also swore that he was not positive whether he received a notice of allotment, but he admitted he must have received a letter which said that the shares had been allotted and notices sent out. Defendant has sworn that the first he knew of the Golden Mascotte as affecting himself was on receiving the telegram, which reads as follows: — "Taieri claim directors Hazlett, Greenslade, Wheeler, Crust,

Simpson, 75 paid-up promoters' shares each. Wire your consent. — Neil." Defendant's reply reads • " Will accept place in directorate. Wishing you success.— Simpson." Now, in the first place, is it likely that telegrams in that form would have passed between them if there had been no previous communication in the matter? and why should defendant receiye promoters' paid-up shares if there was no previous arrangement? and why uhould he agree to become a director of a company he says he knewiiothing of, and without making any inquiry before he accepted? On the other hand, there seems to be no reasonable explanation why Neil should interest himself in getting defendant appointed a director, with an allotment of paidup promoters' shares, unless there was some previous understanding between them. Mr Simpson's evidence — that he had no verbal communication of any kind about the proposed company with Mr Neil before he received Mi Neil's telegram — is nothing short of incredible. Mr Simpson has never raised the slightest objection to the promoters' paid-up shares, but as regards the contributing shares it was fast and loose from the time the draft was presented. A straightforward man, drawn upon asdefendunt was, had his statements made in this case been true, would have communicated with the company at once, and have given his> reasons for not honouring the draft— that he had neither applied nor authorised any person to apply for him for shares ; but defendant knew he could not say that, so he telegraphed : "Ra Mascotte. Will let you know by letter number of chares I intend taking." He admitted that he never did write as he promised, and that he took no more notice of the matter as he thought "he was free of the 200 shares ; that is, that he felt satisfied he had secured the free paid-iip shares and shuffled out of liability for any contributing shares. Mr Neil's evidence is consistent with his action in the matter, and I feel no reason to doubt his evidence that defendant authorised him to apply for 200 shares for him. Judgment for plaintiff for £50, with costs of court (365), witness's expense? (15s), and professional costs (£3 10s).