BARR V. TREVITT 2/1925

2192S THT W1GH COURT OF AUoTa\LIA. SYDNSY heuLSTRY. t= eeseeelanacs Je liggins 3. Barr ov. Trevilt.

Rich J.

Starke J.

ORLER Os COURT:

Appsa.l. ith Costs.

JULGMSHUT delivered in Sydney this 17th day of Lecember 1925,

BARR Ve TREVITT.

JUDGMENT. RICH J.

BARR vs TREVITY. JUDGMENT. RICH J.

Ths proceedings in this case were taken under section 162 of the N.S.W. Companies Act, 1899, whic} provides a summary teme dy against the persons named in the section where misfsasance results in damage, It was not suggested before us or as I und@ratand in the Court below that set-off 1a available to the. party attacked under this Section. Mr. Browne admitted that tlere had been misfeasance on the part of hia client but he contended that it had not resulted in lose to the funds and assets of the company. Any other matter igs wholly irrelevant. As I mof opinion that the matter should be remitted for further hearing it would be inexpedient to discuss the facts of the case. It would ap- pear that at the general meeting of the company held on the Soth. Aug. 1922 the whole matter was discussed and the following questions were asked by counsel for the appeliant ~ "At that meeting was there anything "said about the payments to Mre Barr?" (objected to). "What was said ct

"the meeting" ~ objected to ~ rejected. This evidence was I. think wrong-

Be ly rejected. The isaue being whether there had been repayment to the company of the amount for which the appellant had become liable so that

no logs resulted to the company Cavendish Bentinck va Fenn, 12 teCe at po

662 it is material to know what explanation was given to the shareholderg of the transaction whereby what Maughan 4s. has described as mechanical] entries (and all entries of figures are in one sense mechanical) became translated into a statement of the actual facta elucidating the truc