PARAPARA IRONSAND.

Auckland Star, Volume XLI, Issue 143, 18 June 1910, Page 9

PARAPARA IRONSAND.

Jffi. WITHEFOED'S OPTION. CLAIM FOR £50,000 DAMAGES. (By Telegraph.—Press Association.) WELLINGTON, Friday. Preliminary proceedings "were taken before the Chief Justice (Sir Robert Stout) this afternoon in Chambers in the case of Joseph Howard "Witheford v. the Public Trustee and others. The plaintiff, late member of Parliament for Auckland, and now in England, claimed the Bum of £40.500 compensation for alleged breach of contract on the part of the defendants in connection with the Parapara and other options of the lafe Sir Alfred Jerome Cadman. The case in brief, as gathered from a Statement of claim covering over 40 clauses, was that in 1904 Sir Alfred Cadjnan and Daniel Berry, part owners of the options, entered into an agreement ■with the plaintiff to proceed to the United States of America, and aftertvards, if necessary, to GTeat Britain, for the purpose of endeavouring to float the Parapara mining leases and also the Taranaki ironsand properties into a company. The plaintiff was to receive £250 for

his expenses, and, in the event of his securing a £5000 deposit on the flotation of the properties into a company, to receive also the option of one-eighth. share in the vendors' interest's. The agreement was duly ratified in letters signed by the defendant Berry, and also by Sir Alfred Cadman. The plaintiff proceeded to America in Kovemtoer, 1004, and endeavoured to sell the option. He then went to England, arriving in London in January, 1005. Sir Alfred Cadman died in March of that year, after he had appointed the Public Trustee his executor. The plaintiff asked that suitable plans and reports on the properties of the syndicate should be duly made and forwarded to him in London in order to assist in negotiations which ivere then proceeding. Various difficulties arose, and the defendant Berry desired to repudiate the agreement. The plaintiff claimed that the action of the defendant , prevented him from time to time from bringing the negotiations for the sale of the properties to a head. The agreement with the plaintiff, If "was submitted, -was fully confirmed iby Sir Alfred Cadman before his death. In September, 1907, the defendants in Kew Zealand entrusted the formation of a company to one Joseph Smythe, of Christchureh. In the meantime the plaintiff commenced an action against the defendants, claiming an injunction to restrain .them from dealing with the properties pending the supply of necessary documents required by him to complete ihe sale of the properties under the . agreement. Agreements had been made ■with, the firm of Louis Spitzel and Co., in London, to float the properties into a company. The terms were that the plaintiff should receive £12,500 in cash and £57,000 in fully paid up shares. The completion of this transaction was prevented by the failure of the defendants to complete their titles to the properties and make available sufficient evidence to put before the "buyers. The defendants further made certain alterations in the terms for the sale of the -property, requesting a larger share of "* the proceeds ior themselves. Louis Spifzel objected to this, and finally cancelled the arrangements. The plaintiff, therefore, claimed the sum of £49,500 compensation for breach of contract on the part of the defendants. Messrs. Myers and Levi appeared for the plaintiff, Mr. Stafford for the Public Trustee, and Mr. Dalziell ior the other defendants, Daniel Berry, Alan Maguire, and Hamilton Gilmer. His Honor, aiter hearing argument on technical points, adjourned the case until Tuesday next, in order to enable the plaintiff to amend his statement of claim and also that he himself might be able to peruse the deed of partnership.