'THE LAW ISA H'ASS.'

Observer, Volume XVI, Issue 965, 26 June 1897, Page 2

'THE LAW IS A H'ASS.'

A Case In Point.

Many queer things have been done in connection with the Bank of Hew Zealand. Some of them have been brought to light i perhaps a larger proportion will never Bee the light of day. The- case of Lyell versus 'Perrott, which was tried at the Supreme Court last week, is an eye-opener in its way. It will tend to make the public very chary of trafficking in bank shares, and it certainly will not inspire the ordinary run of people with much reverence for the law, nor convince them that common sense enters largely into the lawmaker's stock-in-, trade. So far as thiß particular case is concerned, we have no doubt the judge correctly expounded the law. But it is equally clear that in this matter the law flies in the face of equity. The facts are said to be these : In September,lß94, Mr Alfred Roßser Perrott, a settler living at Matamata, bought from Mr William Scott Lyell, of Auckland, fifty Bank of New Zealand shares for £35. Mr Perrott paid over his. money, and Mr Lyell signed and delivered to him a transfer, which Mr Perrott on his part signed and accepted. So far everything was satisfactory. But upon the transfer being presented to the Bank directors for regiatration, they exercised the discretionary power given them [by the Bank Directors and Shares Transfer Act of 1894, and refused to register the transfer. Their reasons for taking this course are not stated. Probably they thought Mr Lyell was a more substantial man than Mr Perrott to make calls upon. At any rate, they declined to recognise the transfer. Mr Perrott says he used his best endeavours to procure the registration of the transfer,and that he even went so far as to offer to deposit with the Bank directors £1 in respecl of each of the fifty shares as security for any calls that might be made thereon. But they would not budge from the position they took' up, and this unfortunate settler was left without any title to the shares he had bought and paid for. In the course of time, the Bankdirectors made a call of £3 6s 8d per share, and Mr Lyell paid over £172 8s 2d in respect of the shares he had sold to Mr Perrott. For this amount he has sued Mr Perrott, and has recovered judgment against him, but, recognising the hardship of Perrott's poßition, he did not ask for cpata. These shares, we understand, are liable to a second call of £3 69 Bd. In other words, when Mr Perrott shall have paid the

Becond dall, his little flatter in Bank of New Zealand- Bhareß will have coat him £294 16s4d; which.' he might just as well have thrown over the Queen-street wharf, for he has nothing to show for It/ He is liable for all calls and charges on those fifty shares, but he does not own them,' for the Bank directors refuse to give him a title to them. What can be said for the law that permits snch things? Precious little. The thing is a standing disgrace, and a reflection upon our common sense. Either Mr Perrott should be put in possession of the shares that he honestly bought and paid for, or else his money should be returned to him. For nearly three years, he has been debarred from making any marketable use of the shares. He is responsible for all calls npon them, but they are not legally his. His case carries with it a moral that the public should lay to heart. It ' is to let Bank of New Zealand shares severely alone. They are a kind of goods that burn the fingers of those who handle them. The dealings in them are controlled by a law which sets common-sense at defiance. We feel sorry for Mr Perrott. He has got his neck into a noose which bids fair to throttle him. He may get plenty of sympathy, but no help is forthcoming. Justice declares for him, but the Law interposes its authority. In short, to quote the words of the elder Weller, 'the Law is a h'ass.'