SUPREME COURT.

Star (Christchurch), Issue 4714, 4 August 1893, Page 3

SUPREME COURT.

In Chambers. THIS DAY. (Before his Honor Mr Justice Denniston.) BE HUGH WEIGHT. His Honor gave judgment in the case of Hugh Wright, a lunatic. The present proceedings had, he said, been commenced by what was called a supplementary petition of the daughter and next of kin to the lunatic. The prayer of the petition was that two orders of the Court be rescinded, and that direction be given for the appointment of some fit and proper person other than the Public Trustee to be committee of the estate. The grounds had been set out to be that the Trußtea had not administered the estate in the beat possible manner. His Honor had no hesitation in refusing to think of the main allegations, which were directed to the past administration of the office of the Public Trustees there Beemed to be no grounds for interfering with the control of the Trust Office over the estate, which would not apply to any other estate under its management. The petitioner further claimed that certain property should have come to the estate, which through the negligence of the Trustee had not come. The allegations were of the most general character, and supported only by the general verifying affidavit of the petitioner, while almost the whole of the matters referred to were necessarily outside of her cognizance. Some of the allegations had been abandoned during the argument, and it had been admitted that shrinkage in values had caused the diminution of the estate in certain respects. The payment of the JE3OO mortgage by the Public Trustee had been in no way prejudicial to the equities between the parties, or had in any way injured the estate. General statements that excessive sums had been paid for legal expenses were valueless unless supported by specific instances and proper evidence, and having gone through the papers of the much litigate! matter of the claim of the lunatics' brothers he could not see how any person in the position of the Public Trustee could have accepted the claim without a judicial investigation. The trustee, his Honor considered, was clearly wrong in paying the aum of J3324. without taxation in the case of Di Eapo v. the Public Trustee. Probably both parties would consent to an order to the Registrar in Wellington to tax the bill. Regarding the application for an order for the payment of an allowance to the petitioner, his Honor said he could not make an order. The case was in many respects an unfortunate one. The petitioner was the only child of the lunatic, who, but for his lunacy, would have probably been able and willing to provide for her. She was a married woman living with her husband, and both were in delicate health and in actual want. The cefc income of tho property (after providing for the lunatic's maintenance of 10j per week) waa £G1 4s lid. Against this thero were outstanding liabilities of of ,£354. The petitioner had entered int> many ill-advised proceedings, which had led to co=ls baing paid out ot the estate to tho amount of .£SOO. If the Public Trustee should see his way to make out of the very

small surplus some weekly payment for actual maintenance, his Honor would be happy to make any order sanctioning each arrangement. He would reserve the question of coats. MERCANTILE FINANCE AND AQBNCX COMPANY, LIMITED. His Honor gave his decision upon the case of the Mercantile Finance and Agency Company, wherein an application had been made for the appointment of inspectors. The power of inspectors was, he said, very great and inquisitorial, so such an appointment could not be made unless on suspicion of the gravest mismanagement and misoondact on the part of the management. The mere fact of Berious Jobs was not a correct ground : and it must be shown that the majorityhad acted against the benefit of the minority. The object of the section under which the case was brought was obviously intended for the protection of a minority of the shareholders who might be controlled by a majority who might be unfairly managing the Company. The facts in the case were in the main undisputed, and on being formed into a new Company, the Company had dnly jaid one dividend of 10 per cent and admittedly lost some .£19,000. It hact practically given up business, existing only to colleoS its unrealised eeouritieß. This w«s, of course, disastrous to the shareholders. He had held previously that they were entitled to the very fullest information, and an exceptionally full report had been prepared. There were no charges in the present petition of mismanagement except Buch as were implied in the heavy losseß sustained, which losses . were admitted and shown in the report* The real grounds of the application were on allegations of fraud on the part o£ the Company, and fraudulent mißetatements in the prospectus. Obviously if this were true it would be no ground for an order under section 90. An enquiry on such points could not bo termed an investigation into the affairs of the Company. I£ grounds for investigation had been other* wise shown, it would be no objection that such investigation might incidentally supply materials for an action against the promoters. But the grounds of the application must rest on the management of the Company itself. Unless the mere fact of ruinous loss was in itself such a ground, the application could not succeed* There should, he considered, be some definite allegation of misconduct; some suggestion that the Directors cr the majority of the shareholders were concealing things, or were acting unfairly to the minority. This was particularly the case when the Company had practically ceased! to be a going concern, and existed merely for realisation. If it were merely allowing full access to the books and documents he (his Honor) would havehadno difficulty, because under the circumstances he could not conceive any information as to the management of the Company to which the shareholders would not be entitled. But the inquiry now asked for was inquisitorial, with power to interrogate on oath. He was anxious to do nothing to weaken or restrict what might be so usefnl a protection to a minority, but every case must stand on its merits, and he did not feel justified in permitting it to be used except on clear grounds and for the purposes contemplated by the Act. The application would be refused. THE JOCKEY CLTTB CASE. The matter of O'Brien v. Boyle (M Lane to move, and Mr Kippenberg contra) was further adjourned to next Friday. executors' commissions. Orders for executors' commissions were made in the cases of W. Goodwin (Mr Nalder), W. Norman (Mr Nalder) and Bobert H. Ehodes (Mr Beswick) . war. John ice. His Honor dismissed the summons in the matter of the Habeas Corpus Act 3, and in the matter.of William John Lee, notice of a motion for a writ of habeas corpus. SPECIAL JUBY. His Honor granted a special jury of four in the case of Scarlett v. Conway (Mr Harman). NEW BEIGHTON TRAMWAY COMPANY. Mr T. S. Weston, senior, appeared to move in the case of the New Brighton Tramway Company v. Knight, to amend the statement of defence. Mr Caygill appeared for the plaintiff, and pnt in a statement of claim. After argument his Honor reserved his decision.