SUPREME COURT.—CIVIL SITTINGS.

Auckland Star, Volume II, Issue 451, 21 June 1871, Page 2

SUPREME COURT.—CIVIL SITTINGS.

WEDNESDAY, JUNE 21. J

[Before His Honor Sir G. 7k. Arney, Knight, Chief Justice, and a Special Jury.] '.:

His Honor took his seat on the bench at ten o'clock.

Fernandez t. Cuosbie. — Tee Hazelbank Gold Mine. —Mr. Bees, Mr. Joy, and Mr. Bennett for the plaintiff.—Mr. Whitaker, Mr. Hesketh, and Mr. Richmond for the defendants.—This was an action to try the title to the ground known as the Hazelbank Gold Mine. The ground was stated to be of great speculative value. The action was brought by the plaintiff on behalf of himself-and the' other shareholders in thq Hazelbank Gold Mining Company, to establish their.right and, title to the land, to recover possession, and to restrain the defendants from doing acts upon the ground calculated to injure thfc property. From the statement of .plaintiff's counsel "it appeared that the united shareholders of the original. Hazelbank and Little Gem claims— Messrs. Griffiths, Nancarrow, Fernandez, Stewart, Walker, Crosbio (James and John), Ferguson, Spray, Clark, Boddington, Fischer j Maci'arlane, Ledger, Browning,; Owen, Stichbury, and others'—-resolvcll to amalgamate their interests, and Jo work the ground com' prised within the limits of the above two claims under a comp my, to be called '' The Hazelbank Gold Mining Company." The formal preliminaries having "bean complied with, Crosbie (John) was appointed mining manager. During the month of October, 1870, Orosbie was instructed to apply for a 1. •;o on behalf of the company. But aceoi .ing to the allegation of the declaration, Cros'/e applied for the lease not on behalf of the company, but on his own behalf. The lease was granted to Crosbie in hin own name, and in v.rtite thereof, he now claims to hold the ground. It appeared, however, that iv the meantime Crosbie assigns his interest to a Mr. Humphrey Stevenson, who holds as trustee for the real defendants, Messrs. Black, George Bitchie (deceased), and another. The declaration set out that Crosbie, being in the employment of the company, who instructed him to apply for the lease of the joint property on* their behalf, had obtained it by fraud. "But in the course of time the company is wound up, and the shareholders are informed that they are liable as contributors to liquidate the debts; Crosbie clailned the ground as his. : The ground in question ha 3 risen to great value, and it was statrd that one of the most successful companies on the Thames goldfield had offered £20,000 for the ground. This being the case, it may well be conceived that the property is worth the contest. For the defence it was contended by the defendant that lie was not a servant of the company when he applied for the lease, and did not apply for the lease on their behalf. The issues left for the jury to try were (1) Was the defendant discharged from the service of the company on the (Jth of July, 1870 ? (2.) Was he, in the month of October, working manager of the Hazelbank Gold Mining Company ? (3.) Had he at that date certain rights and interests in the said mine ? $4s) Was ho instructed by the directors of, the Hazelbank Gold Mining Company to apply for a lease of the ground, &c. ?—John Crosbie called and examined by Mr. Bees, deposed that he was one of tho shareholders in the Hazelbank claim. Ho applied for the lease under miners' rights; there were eight altogether. Tho names of the miners' right holders were John Black, James McAuliffe, Stewart Macgregor, Dimsmuro (manager of the Whau Gold Mining Company), and George Turr. Witness held 600 scrip or shares in the Hazelbank Company, but tho company hadbeen wound up. lie did not now claim, through the company, on account of these scrip. He claimed under the lease applied for and obtained under nainei.' rights. The; parties named came into possession of the ground on tho 4th of October. '.Jie ground had been abandoned by the company. Knew it was abandoned, because the company did not take it up when their protection .expired. The 4th October was' Tuesday./. A man' named Thompson pegged out the ground! Witness and party had; been " shepherding* the ground upon the Monday.' There was a man in possession for a few hours the Saturday previous. The naino of Spray did not remain. Witness had sold Spray his original interest in tho Hazelbank claim. Went to Spray, and asked him if ho would have a share in the fresh pegging out. He said he had paid enough money into the Hazelbank Company,' and would not pay any moro—tlialf lie was going to Melbourne or Sydney.* The Warden would not at that time frrant orders to possess abandoned ground. Witness himself applied fer a piece similar, and was refused, but did not apply for this. There were eight in the party altogether, for whom witness took up on the 4th of October, namely, Michael Brett, G. Bitchie, J. Black, Dimsmure, McAuliffe, Stevon, and Smith. On the 10th some difference appeared in the names, hut that was caused by Spray's refusing to take up. Anybody might have had a share when the ground was taken. Witness was simply looking after his own' intorest. Stevenson was a director of the company. Ho was agent for Smith. Stevenson said ho did not think the company would take up the ground again. Smith was in England. Stevenson was agent for Smith, and instructed witness for Stevenson.—Mr. Whitaker objected to tho line of examination. The plaintiff's case wa3 that Coosbie and the other persons who are mentioned were agents of the Hazelbank Company. That ho applied for the lease On behalf of the Company. That he acted under instructions. The line of examination followed by hia learned friend • was altogether beside tho question. A company must act by directors, and through some organisation indicated by rules, act as a body— in fact, have a unity. What one person might say, what .one person might do, could not [be said to be an act of the company, unless it was shown-to. be the act of the company.— Mr.. : Bees said the persons put in were mere dummies..1 The real' intorest was in Crosbie and Stevenson. Tho names Lad been shuffled about to enable Crosbie to get the lease. There was Mr.''Stevenson, a director of the company, authorising. Orosbie, merely think* ing . that tlje company would not take the ground.—Witness : Stevenson authorised me to look after Smith's .interests <: Hid not"'know whether '-Smith/was a director then. He was in ..England... Ho had been a director of the company.' — Mr. Bees : You say that Stevenson instructed you to look after .Smith's1 interest ?-—Witness : Ye 3, to put on a man for Smith.—Mr.

Whitaker objected to the answer being admitted. The issue was, simply, " Was the • defendant instructed by the directors to apply for a lease ?" The question 'was, did he receive instructions from Mr. Smith or Mr. Smith's agent. There -i&ust be some official act of the compiuy to connect the company with these instructions. The proceedings tak'en in this behalf by an individual shareholder, or an individual director, amounted to nothing 7 towards answering the issue. We ought first to getat the constitution of the company, so as to show the mode in which they can legally-act. —His Honor .That is precisely- what I have looking. - _/;;• '" ■- j '&,'