RESIDENT MAGISTRATE'S COURT.

West Coast Times, Issue 7350, 22 March 1889, Page 2

RESIDENT MAGISTRATE'S COURT.

Thursday, Maech 21,

(Before Major Keddell, EM.)

The Court opened at 11 a.m.

His Worship said he would give judgn inent in the case Fowler and Duncan v. Evans on Saturday morning. James Renton v. R. Hey ward and G. M. Eraser, claim £ii 2s 6d. No appearance of defendant. Mr Purkiss, for plaintiff, said the actioa was on a dishonored choque and two dishonored promissory note . Mr Renton gave evidence of the claim. Judgment for amount with costs, 30s ; counsels fee, 425.

D. Cullen v. William Hyndman, claim £8 3s. No appearance of defendant. Mr Purkiss for plaintiff. Judgment for amount claimed with coats, 10s ; counsels fee, £1 Is.

Official Assignee v. Hokifcika Harbor Board. Mr Moss for plaintiff, Mr Purkias lor defendants ; time enlarged for service of summons.

John Nicholson v. It. L. Stanford, claim £12 10s, for refund of calls in Equitable Insurance Association. Mr Purkiss for plaintiff, Mr Moss for defendaut. The evidence of the defendant and also of a witness, Fen wick, wan hoird in Dunedin.

Mr Purkiss said t'-ie action arose out of a transac'ion in shares between the parties. The plaintiff sold defendant 500 char s in the Equitable Insurance Assochtion in August, 1888. In September a oall of 6d per share was struck which plaintiff wes compelled to pay in December. He now sued for a refund of the amount. Mr Moss sr id all the facts were admitted.

Mr Purkiss, continuing said the trans-* fer was burdened with any calls that might be made. Although it was duly executed it was not registered, and Mr Nicholson's name appeared iv the books of the company as the holder. 1I<; paid the call and drew on Stanford for the amount, the payment of; the draft beiog

refused. It might be urged that it was the vendor's duty to procure the registration of the transfer— the ratification of the contract. Such was not the case, the duty rested on the vendee. The Companies Act, of 1882, was a transcript of an English Act still in force, and he quoted from authorities in support of his contention.

Evidence taken in Dunedin was then put in. ■ ■

Mr Moss raised a nonsuit point. It was the duty ot the purchaser of shares on the London Stock Exchange to see that the transfer was effected— that duty was established by custom. Nowhere else was this custom shown. In this country the very stringency of the provisions of the Stamp Act showed that there could be no such custom as obtained on tbe London Stock Exchange, Mr Purkies saie he was quite willing to admit that the custom of the London Stock Exchange did not obtain here.

Mr Moss read fr.iin the articles of As* eociation of the Company, which showed that the directors had tbe power to refuse to accept any perron as a shareholder in place of another without even assigning a reason for so doimr. la this case the

Tendor had taken no steps whatever to git the directors to accept tbe vendee as a shareholder The Articles showed that the alienation of shares could almost be made impossible. Mr Nicholson took these up with his eyes open, and had manifestly failed in his duty if he wished to place his responsibility on another. Counsel quoted at length from English authorities in support of this contention. He also quoted from a decision by Mr Justice Richmond in Wellington in whioh it was held that shares do not pass on transfer but on registration of transfer. The evidence of Mr Stanford and Mr Fenwick both showed th*t reasonable efforts had been made to obtain the assent of the directors to the transfer and they refused . At 1 p.m. the Court adjourned to 2.30. AFTERNOON SITTING.

The Court resumed at 2.30* Nicholson v. Stanford, Mr Purkiss, for the plaiotiff, urged that the custom of the Stock Exchange had no bearing. It was a practice in common law that the purchaser should take the necessary s'eps to make his title good. Jn this caße the vendor had done everything that tbe law demanded, and was in no way responsible for the non-registration of the transfer ; that was a duty devolving upon the vendee. The cases cited by his learned friend were not in point, as with them it ! was necessary for the transferor first to obtain the consent of the Company before they made a transfer ; in this case the directors could only refuse to register the transfer. Transfer of shares was as wiih transfer of lan<3. After the seller had signed the necessary transfer his du'y ceased, the duty of completion devolved (.Sea fourth p«gt % )

upon the purohaser. In rapporiing this argument Mr Pnrkiss quoted from authorities at length, Mr Moss having replied. His Worship said he would reserve judgment* He regretted that such, an important case was left to him- >Tbe amount was within his jurisdiction, but the case was of such very great importance that higher authorities would Ire desirable. He would of course be

glad to' state 2 a case fcr appeal if required. r 4 Ljnneman v Pollock, claim for expenses incurred in an action e rising out of a transfer of shsres, Mr Park for plaintiff, Mr Moss for defendant.—- Adjourned till April 2. S. 6. Ferguson v John Allen, claim £19 3s, damage &c, sustained by cattle through impounding. Mr Moss for plaintiff, Mr Park for defendant. Mr Mosa in opening tbe case said Mr Aitab had impounded some cattle belonging to the plaintiff for trespassing, and Kid not given sufficient notice. The land on which it was alleged. they were trespassing did not belong to Mr Allen, he t(as 'merely squatting on it. He bad applied to the Land Board for a title, bat this they could not grant as it wss reserved for Midland Railway purposes. He called— -Samuel George Ferguson, the plaintiff, who. said he learnt that his cattle were In the pound at Boss. He immediately sent two men to pay the impounding fees and bring them back. Tbe cattle were driven out the next day, and then driven on to tbe ran; Estimate the loss through driv« ing &c, .was £1 per head. Some of the cattle were fit for the butcher and through the driving they had gone back so that they, would not be fit for the market for four months. Allen's orchard is not pro» perly fenced, some panels have two rails, some have one and some places have no fence at all. Received the notice produced from the pound keeper. -Cross-examined — Allen's orchard is about 13 mileß from Rose; the place on the run where we drove them is 2 or 3 miles further. The cattle impounded were a cow, a heifer, eight steers and tbree weanera. A steer or weaner is worth £2 10s or £3. I believe they depreciated half their value through being driven. Allen

made a demand for £5 for damage and I * finally paid him 10s which be accepted. Allen has been in occupation of this place for at least 10 or 12 years. 1 never said I would like Allen to impound all cattle that came on to tbe ground. Re-examined — Mr Allen bas been living in Ross for some time ; he was living there when the trespass was committed. John Allen, defendant in the Buit, said— The notice produced is not tbe one I gave to the pound keeper, at least I gave it to him and after looking up the impounding ordinance, gave another one ; I occupy the paddock ; sometimes reside acjthe Waitaha and sometimes at Boss ; store cattle would not be hurt by driving 18 miles. The cattle referred to were only stores. I gave the second notice immediately after writing the first one. I neglected to take back the first notice. Cross examined— My man can drive fat cattle 20 miles in one day without hurting them.' At 5.30 the Court adjourned til 9.30 the following morning.