BOWLING SQUABBLE

Taranaki Daily News, 16 December 1926, Page 9

BOWLING SQUABBLE

MATTER BEFORE THE COURT MEMBER’S CLAIM TO A SHARE. JUDGE RESERVES DECISION By Telegraph.—Press Association. Wellington, I-aat Night. Mr. J. D. Sievwright, who, iu a case against the Wellington Bow-ling Club* Ltd., some time ago, succeeded in having declared unlawful his purported expulsion from that club, lias now taken out an action in the Supreme Court against the club asking for a mandamui that he is entitled to a share in tbe company. The statement of claim set out that, about 1007, plaintiff complied with all the necessary formalities to acquire a share in the company, and the then directors of the company purported to allot the plaintiff one share, number 162. The defendant company thereafter returned plaintiff as a member of the company. The claim further set out that in the Supreme Court action brought by plaintiff, it was found that the action of the directors in purporting to allot to plaintiff share 162, was ultra vires. It was further stated that since the action the company had increased its nominal capital and. on February 23, 1926, the company had, and still had available, unallotted shares. On February 23, 1926, plaintiff applied to the company and its directors to have allotted to him a share which the company purported to have allotted to him in 1907, but the company and director# refused, and still refused to allot the share to plaintiff. Plaintiff claimed that the company and its directors were in law bound to allot him a share. As an alternative statement, plaintiff eaid that if it was found that he was never entitled to become registered as a holder of a share, he was elected a member of the bowling club in 1907, and, as sueh, became entitled to all the privileges of an ordinary member of the defendant club. He further stated that he had remained a member and paid all moneys and otherwise performed all the acts entitling him to remain a member of the club. He set out that in March, 1924, the club had purported to expel him from the club, but the expulsion was declared unlawful. He finally alleged that the directors refused to permit him to exercise his privileges as a member of the club. Plaintiff himself gave evidence but the defence did not call any witnesses. z The statement of defence denied that plaintiff had complied with all the formalities necessary to- acquire a share in the company. Personal defendants admitted that, as directors of the club, they had refused to permit plaintiff to exercise the privilege of membership, and further stated that, so far as itrested with them to do so, they would Still refuse to permit plaintiff to exercise any such privilege. For a further defence it was stated that plaintiff was stopped in this action by the judgment referred to previously. It was contended that the defendants had no power to allot a share in the capital of the club, except to persons qualified under clauses 34 to 43 of the defendant club’s articles of association, and plaintiff was not so qualified. It was further contended that if any contract was entered into in 1907 (which was denied) eueh contract was subsequently rescinded by the expulsion of the plaintiff from membership. If there was a contract, the contract was entered into on the erroneous assumption that the club had, at the time, available for allotment, a share in the capital of the club, subject to certain conditions. After a legal argument, His Honour, the Chief Justice, reserved his decision.