A MINING CASE.

Otago Witness, Issue 2467, 26 June 1901, Page 21

A MINING CASE.

In the S. il. Court on Wednesday the following case was heard- —

The Moonlight Gold Dredging Company v. I H. J. Tasker (Clmstchurch).— Claim £33 12s 6d. j for calls due on shares. — Mr Adams appeared for plaintiffs, and Mr Fincb for defendant. — The argument in this ease for the plaintiffs was that defendant wired to Messrs Siigo Bros. I (brokers) " Allot me 50 each, Caledonia, West- i land, Moonlight, and Victory." — Mr Adams con- j tended that the word " allot " (inasmuch as the i biokers hid no power themselves to allot the , shares) must necessarily mean that the biokers were to take steps to insure Mr Tasker obtain- j ing the allotment ot his shares when the com- j pany was formed, and this could only be done , by making application in the usual way. Evidence would be called to piove that the notice of allotment was posted to defendant's usual address in Christchurch, which counsel submitted was sufficient proof that he received it. Counsel cited the cases of the Househojd File Insurance Company v. Grant (L R. 4 Ex. D., 225) and Hen thorn v. Fraser (L.E., 1892).— The defence was that defendant had never authorised Messrs Sligo Bros, to apply for the shares, and that he had never received any notice of allotment. — After the luncheon adjournment, his Worship gave judgment as follows: — " Tho points in dispute in this rase are whether Messrs Sligo Bros, were authorised by defandant i to apply for allotment of the shares, and if so whether the defendant was duly notified that the allotment had been made. Defendant's first telegram reads . — ' Allot me 50 each, Caledonia, | Wesfcland, Moonlight, Victory ' ; to which Sligo j replied. 'Caledonia, Westland closfed; booked' you 50 each others.' The defendant telegraphed: j 'All light; allot me extra 100 Victory.' I must i take at to be that defendant knew Sligo could not allot shares, and all he could do was to j spply for an allotment for him, and I think it j was ?o intended, and clearly within his authority. There is nothing in the use of the word ' booked ' to lead to a contrary opinion. ' At the date of the telegrams the company was not , formed, as defendant admits he knew, and the word 'booked' would convey the meaning that Sligo had booked or noted the authority ! to make the applications. As to the printed Signature to the notice of allotment, the secre- , tary was authorised by a resolution to notify the allotment, and he posted a printed form sufficiently wooded to that effect, the number of shares and address being in wilting, the other part, including the secietaiy's name and office, in print. There can be no doubt this was sufficient to bind the company, although I think the method adopted of printing the secretary's name to be unbusinesslike and unsatisfactory. The obiect of the notice was to accept defendant's offer to take shares and complete the contiact, and, being sufficient to bind the company, was all that was required. lam satisfied the notice of allotment was posted, and that the defendant's memory is not veiy reliable. He wiote on May 5 — ' Kindly forward to me the prospecUis of Victorys and Moonlights at once : no others will do ' ; but in his evidence with regard to that letter he said : ' I wrote a letter on 3rd or 4th May, 1900, stating that I wanted Moonlights and Victorys or none at all.' Then, j again, fiom June 1900, to Maich. 1901, notices of eight different rails were posted to him, and he does not dispute receiving them, but for all that time he took the chance of the market, and made no attempt at repudiating his being a shareholder. It looks very much like a struggle -to get out of a bad bargam I think the plaintiff company arc entitled to judgment. Judgment for plaintiffs, £33 12s 6d , costs of court, 30s; costs and expenses of witnesses, 425, piofessional costs, 525."