It was suggested by Mr Dunlop that Mr Hall eliould take up 150 shares, and when he said that was too many Mr Dunlop asked him to have his name put down for 150, but that he should only be held liable for 50, the other 100 to be sold by Mr Dunlop. It was arranged that Mr Hall should give a promis sory note for the whole application and allotment, and that while the P.N. was maturing the 100 shares should be sold and Mr Hall recouped his £25. The suggestion was reduced to writing. This was Mr Dunlop's affair, and was not brought to the notice of any of the other directors- Ho understood that Hall was only liable for calls on SO of the shares. To Mr Rees : He understood certain troubles had arisen since then, but he could not say that these proceedings were a portion of the unpleasantness that had taken place. His impression was that the shares were to be sold by Mr Dunlop, as Mr Hall had already got a large number of shares dis posed of, and he (witness) thought he had done his duty. To Mr Finn : He should take this to be a personal matter between Hall and Dunlop. To Mr Rees : He looked upon it that Mr Dunlop took the responsibility on his own shoulders. If Mr Dunlop hud been acting for the company he should have signed his name as general manager. This closed the case for the plaintiff. For the defence Mr Rees said it was regrettable this case was hefore the Court. The defence was that it wii3 found necessary for the success of the company to increase the share capital, and Mr Dunlop, Mr Hall, and some of the other directors worked successfully to that end. It was not at the request of any particular director that Mr Hall took these Bhares up, but as the result of a general understanding — the understanding being that if Mr Hall lined to repudiate the shares before the ».n. matured he could do so. 