MINING VENTURE

Ashburton Guardian, Volume 55, Issue 272, 30 August 1935, Page 7

MINING VENTURE

SUIT FOR REFUND OF £l5O.

CLAIM BY A MERCHANT.

(Per Press Association). CHRISTCHURCH, August 29. A claim against Thomas Newburgh and Sons, sharebrokers, and the Mining House (N.Z.) Ltd'., a mining investment company l , both of Christchurch, was heai'd in the Supreme Court before Mr Justice Johnston. The plaintiff was Gerald Robert Maling, merchant, of Christchurch, and the claim was for a refund of £l5O, with interest. It was alleged that an agent of the defendants or one of them had induced plaintiff to advance £l5O to join a syndicate whose object was to acquire and develop an area on the West Coast for gold mining. It was claimed that no functioning syndicate had been formed and, alternatively, that the representations made had been false. The defence was a denial of the allegations. Evidence was given by plaintiff and others, including George Sinclair McDonald, an agent, who said he was working for both defendants at different times. In 1932 he was instructed by W. G. McDonald, managing director of Mining House (N.Z.) Ltd., to form a syndicate for the development of the Brown’s Terrace area. The commission for obtaining members for the syndicate was paid by the secretary of Mining House. To Mr Thomas, counsel for Newburgh and Sons, witness said that the whole of his instructions throughout the negotiations came from the manager of Mining House (N.Z.) Ltd., for which company until the end of March, 1933, Newburgh and Son were the secretaries. The first payment of £4O was paid to Newburgh and Sons as secretaries, but when the second payment of £llO was made, it went direct to Mining House (N.Z.) Ltd.

Mr Thomas moved for a non-suit at the close of the plaintiff’s case. He said the claim against his client was based on (1) money being received; (2) fraud. It was clear that the firm of Thomas Newburgh and Sons was secretary to Mining House (N.Z.) Ltd., and the first’ sum of £4O was obviously received by the firm as an agent. He submitted, too, that there had been no evidence of fraud by anyone. It was extraordinary, he said, that such a serious allegation should have been made against such a reputable firm and nothing brought in Court to substantiate it.

Mr M. O. Barnett, for Mining House, Ltd., moved for judgment for the defendant or a non-suit. The evidence failed entirely, he said, to prove plaintiff’s case in any respect.

His Honor reserved his decision on the non-suit submissions until tomorrow morning.