SUPREME COURT.-Civil Sittings.

Auckland Star, Volume II, Issue 455, 26 June 1871, Page 2

SUPREME COURT.-Civil Sittings.

MONDAY, JUNE 26th.

[Before His Honor Sir G-./A. Arney, Knight, Chief Justice, and a Special Jury.] His Honou took lri» teat on the Bench at 10 o'clock.

Febnandkz v. Oeobbie.—The Hazelbank Mink.—This cause was part heard on Thursday lost. The action, it will be recollected, is taken by the plaintiff on behalf of the shareholders of the Hazelbank Gold Mining Company, to try the title to the ground comprised within the above claim. The facts of the case were published at great length on the first hearing. The shareholder!, it was said, had abandoned the ground, and the defendant took it up as soon as protection expired, and claimed it under the Gold fields Acts and Regulations. The defendant denied there had been any such abandonment.—-Mr. Reea and Mr. Joy, instructed by Mr. Bennett, for the plaintiff; Mr. Whitaker and Mr. Hesketh for the defendant.—Mr. Whitaker moved the Court for a nonsuit, on the ground that tho action could not bo maintained between parties holding the relations which -were held by the plaintiff and defendant, the" defendant himself being a shareholder. The-action was brought by the plaintiff on behalf of the shareholders. Captain Skene had..been appointed official liquidator, and the plaintiff* should have made their claimupoii him.—His Honor : Is not this action in the nature of a suit for specific relief. The plaintiff, comes forward on the part of the shareholders of this company, and asks the Court to preserve to them their rights. The defendant is a shareholder in the company. I shall reserve the point. The evidence may in the meantime go to the jury. It is always. Bafer to hear the whola of the evidence, and take the verdict of the jury. We can always hear the argument afterwards.—John Crosbie was recalled, and said that he had transferred all ruhf, title, and interest in the Hazelbank mine to the company.—Cross-examined by Mr. Rees:— How is it your memory has so improved since the last hearing?— Witness: Because I have seen the deed. It is now in the hands of Mr. Richmond. I cannot say how it came into hi» hands. It was at first in the office of. Mr. Beveridgo.—The witness "was cross-examined at great length upon conversations with workmen wheu commencing the new pegging, as to whether he took it up for the company. He said the statement of Rowley upon this point was false. The witness' denied that he did any work as- mining manager after the 6th of July. Did not think the value of the ground at that time exceeded £100.—Mr. Rees contended that the document assigning defendant's interest to the company should have been put in.—Mr. Whitaker had no objection, but that it was hardly worth the £5 for the stamp. —In re-examination, repeated that he had assigned all his interest in the Hazelbank claim in consideration of obtaining so much scrip of the company.— Captain Skene, legal manager of the company, proved that on the 20th of May, .1870, by his authority an advertisement was inserted in the Thames Advertiser to the following effect:— Thut as there were no funds on hand for carrying on the operations of the company, the work would be discontinued nfter the following Saturday, and all shareholders who had paid up their calls were told to protect their own interest. Witness never guve any directions to Crosbie for the taking up of this claim. The company, so far as witness knew, had abandoned the ground.—W. H. Thompson, a miner living at the Thames, deposed that he was put upon the ground by John Orosbie.