SHAREBROKING CASE.

Otago Witness, Issue 3007, 1 November 1911, Page 3

SHAREBROKING CASE.

PLAINTIFF NONSUITED. WELLINGTON, October 19. In the case in which Frederick C. Hjorring, sharebroker, of Wellington, proceeded against J. Bridson, storekeeper, Coromandel, to recover as damages the sum of £4l 13s 4d, reserved judgment was given by Dr A. M'Arthur, S.M., at tha Magistrate's Court to-day. It was alleged by plaintiff that during April, 1911, acting under instructions from defendant, he purchased for the latter 2000 9d shares in tha Kaponga Gold Mining Company (Ltd.). The shares were tendered to defendant by plaintiff, but Bridson refused to take or pay for them. Some time afterwards plaintiff was called on to pay a call of 2d per share on the shares. Eventually he disposed of them at the price of 6d each. The claim of £4l 13s 4d was, therefore, made as indemnity for loss. Counsel for defendant contended, said his Worship, that plaintiff must be non-suited on the ground that he had not proved with regard to the sale and purchase of tha shares non compliance with the provisions of section 133 of "The Stamp Duties Act, 1908," which provided: "On the sale of any shares in a mining company, the seller's contract note on duly stamped material shall, within 24 hours of the hour of sale, be transferred by the seller to the buyer, and the buyer's contract note shall in like manner be transmitted by the buyer to the. seller." These requirements were not complied with. Counsel relied on Gaulter, Dykes, and Co. v. Beggs, where it was held that it was incumbent on brokers in an action by them against their principals for moneys spent in connection with the sale and purchase of mining shares on behalf of and at request of their principals, to prove compliance with sections 132 to 141 of "The Stamp Act, 1908," and if they failed to do so. the brokers could not recover such moneys. In his Worship's opinion, Gaulter, Dykes, and Co. v. Beggs controlled the present casa, and plaintiff must, therefore, be. non suited on the grounds of non-compliance with section 133 of the Stamp Act. His Worship was aware that counsel for plaintiff tried to draw a distinction, inasmuch as defendant was also a broker, but the judgment of Mr Justice Chapman in the case above cited cleared the point. Hia Honor said : "It applies, therefore, to civil proceedings between a sharebroker and his principal or some other party connected with the sale of shares in a mining company in connection with which the sharebroker has to adduce evidence." Plaintiff was non-suited with casta.