Barnes and Co Limited v Sharpe [1910] HCA 26

462 HIGH COURT [1910

H.O.or A. residue" in the fourth condition of the bond. In view of the 1910. difference between the language of the Charter and that of the Beerry bond under the Statute of Distributions, I am not prepared to

Arronvey. S8Y these words may not include whatever appears to be unad- iENERAL OF ministered upon any of the administrator's accounts whether New Soot

Wares. debts are then paid or not, and not merely the balance for distribution among beneficiaries. I leave this question open. This appeal should for these reasons be allowed.

Isaacs J.

Appeal allowed. Broan (ges. Solicitors, for appellant, Russell & Russell. — Waa Solicitor, for respondent, 0. A. Coghlan. # z. pera ts

[HIGH COURT OF AUSTRALIA.)

BARNES & CO. LIMITED AND OTHERS . APPELLANTS;

PLAINTIFFS, AND SHARPE AND OTHERS ; 5 : . RESPONDENTS. DEFENDANTS, H.C. of A. 1910, ON APPEAL FROM THE SUPREME COURT OF ae QUEENSLAND. Brispaye,

April 26, 27. Defamation—Corporations—Kepresentative action—Practice — Misjoinder — Non- joinder — New trial — Nonsuit — Evidence — Misdirection — Non-direction—

MeLBouRNE,

ieee Damages — Innuendo of conspiracy by corporations — Queensland Criminal

Code of 1899, sec. 543—Queensland Rules of the Supreme Court, Order IIL., Grifith C.J, rr. 1, 4,5, 6, 10.and 11; Order IV, r. 7; Order XV., 7.7; Order XXXL,

O'Connor and 5

Higgins JJ. r. 53 Order LIV., v

ll CLR.) OF AUSTRALIA.

The appellants, who were seven limited companies, suing in their corporate names respectively, nine co-partnership firms, suing in their firtas' names respectively, and two individuals, brought an action against the respondents for defamation, describing themselves as bringing the action on behalf of themselves and all other members of the Queensland Farm and Dairy Produce Merchants and Agents Association—an unincorporated trade association con- stituted by the plaintiffs and one other firm, which was not otherwise made a party to the action, The defendants were the Farmers Co-operative Dis- tribating Company of Queensland Limited, Sharpe, the manager, and Nielsen, a director of the company. "Damages were claimed in respect of two separate defamatory publications, One of these was contained in a circular issued by the respondent Sharpe to customers of the plaintiffs and published in several newspapers, accusing the plaintiffs of having entered into a conspiracy to prevent farmers from obtaining a fair price for their produce. 'The other was contained in a letter written by the respondent Nielsen to the same effect and published in other newspapers. 'The defendants joined in their defence and appeared by the same counsel and solicitors. At the trial it was proved that both of the publications were made with the company's authority and by or at the instigation of Sharpe. It was also proved that Nielsen had published the letter, but it was not proved that he had authorized the publication of the circular, The jury found in favour of the plaintiffs with £1,000 damages. 'The Supreme Court of Queensland on appeal directed judgment of nonsuit to be entered.