Warden's Court.

Cromwell Argus, 18 July 1910, Page 5

Warden's Court.

Thursday, 14th July, 1910. Before Warden E. W. Porritt. Special Dkedoino Claims. George James Parker (Mr Brodrick) 73 acres Kawarau river between Cromwell and Bannockburn bridge.—Becommended to Minister of Mines for consent. Charles H. Hutton (Mr Brodrick), IS acres Kawarau river about five miles up from Kawarau Gorge, extending up the river 120 chains. and ending at Natural bridge.—Granted, six mouths allowed to commence work. Hugh W. McColl (Mr Brodrick), 18 acres Kawarau river, about two and a-half miles up from Kawarau Gorge, extending up the river, 120 chains.—Granted, six months allowed to commence work. Henry G. Mortimer (Mr Brodrick). 18 acres Kawarau river about hundred yards above Natural bridge extending up river 120 chains. —Granted, six months allowed to commence work. Watkk Paces. Jas. McConnell (Mr "Wood), application to shift intake and alter course of race a quarter of a mile up the Bannockburn Creek about three chains higher up the hill than at present. —Struck out. Jas. McConnell (Mr Mood), three heads for mining, domestic and irrigation from Bannockburn Creek at a point about two and a-half miles from Kawarau river to applicants occupation lease. —Granted. Henry Hamer, protection for twelve months for water rights from Devil s Creek.—The Warden stated he could only grant six months protection, but the altitude protected it till the Ist October. Held over to 10th November. Harry D. Young (Mr Bodkin), two heads for irrigation and general purposes from Lindis river, at lower cud of J. Mead’s small grazing run, running 500 yards to small Hat on applicants run.—Granted. Special Qlautz Cuaims. Harman Beeves (Mr Brodrick), 71 acres at Bendigo.—Recommended to Minister of Mines for grant, license to issue in the name of Cromwell Mine Syndicate Ltd. Cromwell Mine Syndicate Ltd., (Mr Brodrick), 59 acres being southern half of claim adjoining H. Beeves application Bendigo,—Preliminary hearing disposed, of, adjourned for survey and plans. Harman Beeves (Mr Brodrick), 51) acres, being northern half of section 2(1, Block in Bendigo.—Preliminary hearing .disposed of adjourned for survey and plans. W. H. Thomas, J. Mann and others, surrender of quartz claim at Bendigo— Accepted. Besihence Sites. Bobert Bruce (Mr Wood) surrender of residence site on cast bank of Molyneux river below Cromwell bridge.—Accepted. Janet Bruce (Mr "Wood) residence area of one acre on cast bank of Molyueux river below Cromwell bridge, Id x 2 chains. —Granted. John P. Avery, surrender of residence site at Bocky Point.—Granted. Isabella Avery, surrender of residence site at Bocky Point.—Granted. Extended Alluvial Claims. Nicholas Thomas (Mr Wood), three acres Northburu Crock, Quartz Beef Point. —Granted. Wm. Wood, surrender of claim held at Quartz Beef Point. —Accepted. MINING SUIT. Before Warden E. W. Porritt. Charles Weaver, H. P. Pocoek. John Jameson, and Samuel Cameron (Mr Budkin) v. Isaac Stevenson, Port Chalmers, engineer, (Mr Bundle, of Dunedin). ]. The claim is that on or about the loth April the plaintiffs and the defendant acquired a mining privilege being a special dredging claim in the Clutha district, and agreed to prospect the same as partners and thereby became a mining partnership under part vm of “The Mining Act, 1908" 2. The plaintiffs and defendant are interested in the said partnership in the follow ing shares ; Charles Weaver 000 shares, Isaac Stevenson 10,800 shares. S. Cameron 200 shares, H Pocoek 200 shares. John Jameson 200 shares. 3. On or about the 25th November, 1909, it was agreed between the plaintiffs and defendant that the plaintiff, Charles Weaver, should carry out and manage the work of prospecting the said mining privilege on behalf of said partnership, and the partnership agreed with the Earnsclengh G.D. Co, Ltd. and the 909 G.D. Co, Ltd, to prospect the said mining privileges and the adjoining privileges jointly. 4. It was afterwards ascertained that the said mining privileges did not adjoin each other and the plaintiffs and defendant then agreed that the said Chailes Weaver should carry out and manage the prospecting of the mining privileges of the partnership and put down .bores and do other work for that purpose. 5. The said Charles Weaver on behalf of and at the request of the said partnership carried out the said work and expended monies and incurred liabilities amounting to £213 3s (id. (5. The said sum of 9213 3s (id was payable by the partners in the following shares or proportions.: C. Weaver 910 !8s 10d, Isaac Stevenson .€194 11s 2d, J. Jameson £3 I Is 2d, S. Cameron £3 11s 2d, H. Pocoek €3 I Is 2 hj 7. The plaintiffs have all paid their respective shares, but the defendant, Isaac Stevenson, has refused to pay his proportion and has for 30 days neglected and refused to pay the same, 8. The plaintiffs on or about the 23rd April, 3910, notified the said Isaac Stevenson in writing to discharge his liability in respect of the said sum of £213 3s Od, but ho has neglected to do so 9. The said mining privilege of the partnership has been prospected and has proved to be of no value and the partnership adventure in respect thereof has terminated. 10. The partnership can only be carried on at a loss. 11. It is just and equitable that the said partnership should he dissolved. j 12. The plaintiffs avo ready and willing

to bear their share of the debts and obligations of the partnership. 13. The partners desire to have the partnership dissolved and the accounts taken by the court and the affairs wound up. Id. The plaintiffs pray the court to decree : (a) A dissolution of the sa.d partnership, and that the accounts of the partnership bo taken and the business thereof wound up by the Court. (1>) That the defendant, Isaac Stevenson be ordered to pay his proportion of the liabilities of the sayl partnership and the costs of this suit. (c) Such further and other relief as the Court seems meet. In his opening remarks Mr Bodkin said the owners of three claims on the Clutha Hivcr, one known as Weaver and party, one as tlie Earnscleugh Co., and the other as the UOU Co., arranged at a meeting in Clyde to have some bores put down to test their claims. Mr Weaver was interested in all of them, and he thought it advisable to put down four on the Syndicate’s claim known as Weaver and party, four on the top boundary of the UOU claim, and four on the Earnscleugh claim, and as he had a subsidy of £SO granted, he was distributing this between the parties and arranged the matter with the UOU and Earnscleugh companies on that basis. It was left in Mr Weaver’s hands by the parties to carry out the work as he thought (it. but when lie- got tbe plans from the Court be found the UOU company was not bounded by the other claims, so the arrangements he had made would have to fall through. As the boring machine was then on the ground, he started it at the No 1 bore, and shortly after Mr Stevenson was on the ground and holding nine-tenths of the interest m ] this claim, lie expressed himself as satisfied with the operations. As the No 11 bore was a very good one, at a meeting hold in Alexandra it was decided to put down more holes, and as the results were not satisfactory, the other members were consulted and it was decided to stop operations. There was then no question that the account submitted was not correct, but in a letter afterwards Mr Stevenson stated the accounts were to be paid in the proportion of onethird each by Weaver and Co. Kobnan and Co, and tbe UOU Co. Mr Weaver being a man of substance' was called on to pay, and lias paid out of bis own private funds about £llO. Mr Weaver paid two visits to Dunedin to see Mr Stevenson but could not get any satisfaction; as lie would not join with Mr Weaver to take action against (ho Earnscleugh and UOU Company, or in any way to meet him, consequently he had to take these proceedings. He then quoted different sections of the Act bearing on the question- of jurisdiction. Mr Weaver in bis evidence said he had interests in the three claims but would not invest until they were tested by r boring. After negotiations it was arranged when Mr Stevenson came in to bore the three properties, the Syndicate or Weaver and party’s claim being worked out on the basis of 12,000 shares, Mr Stevenson having IO,SOO shares, Weaver (500, and the three others 200 each. It was left to him to see the boring carried out, and the idea was to have it carefully tested so that it should be looked on as a safe investment. He was to supervise the prospects and working. He found when the sketch was got from the court the proposed plan they had' decided on for boring would not test Ihc Syndicates claim. He then substituted another plan, and as Mr Stevenson and Mr Pocock arrived at Lowburn as the operations had just been started, they both visited the ground. He put the position clearly before Mr Stevenson as to the alterations, and he saw the row of holes proposed to be bored and favored the arrangement. He distinctly told Mr Stevenson as be was the largest shareholder, and it rested with him to propose how he wanted it bored, and lie left it with him (Mr Weaver) to carry out as proposed there ou the ground. All the results of the bores ou (he Syndicates claim were sent direct to Mr Stevenson. The 25 bores on the Syndicates claim were for and in the -interests of them only, and he would not be in favor of the Earnscleugh or UOU companies paying a part of these. The cost of the boring ou the Syndicates claim was £213, so far as it goes, but (here are still some accounts to add. The results of the bores on the Syndicates claim were not given to the Earnscleugh or UOU companies, and no account was furnished to (hem as to the cost, The Earnscleugh company did some boring on their claim, which cost £SB, and was paid for by them, and the results of these were given to the Earnscleugh Co. only. At an informal meeting held in Alexandra at whieb Messrs Stevenson, Pocock, Cameron, and himself were present it was agreed lo put down sonic more zig-zag holes from the No 11 bore. He never at any time (bought the Earnscleugh or bolt companies should pay part of the cost of boring the Syndicates claim. Mr Stevenson would not pay his proportion of the cost of boring (be Syndicates claim, as be said the UOU and Earnscleugh should pay one-third each. He paid two visits to Dunedin to sec Mr Stevenson to try and arrange the matter, but to no effect. He offered to arbitrate by accepting Mr Hosking, of Dunedin, and at Mr Stevenson's suggestion to name some one in Central Otago, to accept Messrs MHvcan, Stewart, or Ewing, .but Mr Stevenson would not do it, so he had lu take this action, Messrs Jameson, Pocock, Goodgcr and Kclman corroborated the main statements for the plaintiffs, and J' ()1 < die defence, Mr Stevenson and S. Cameron gave evidence which did not differ materially from (he facts related. The Warden in giving judgment said the foundation of the agreement was made at a meeting held in Clyde on 25th November and what look place at that meeting although not too clear on some details the two things ho was clear about was the Syndicate claim or Five Mile, and the J'pinis'deqgli and UOU Dredging companies each agreed to put down four bores at certain places that is on the boundaries of the different claims, anything outside these to be paid for by the separate claim holders. Mr Weaver was placed in charge of the whole concern and as he was representing the three parties, the question then came up as to how far the parties are responsible owing to the boring not being carried out as originally agreed, which was impossible owing to (ho plans showing the claims wore sitnaled iu quite a different shape (o what th: parties thought at the meeting. The work run into more than was expected,

but the work carried out showed clearly, and Mr Stevenson saw it in progress and it was mentioned to him by Mr Weaver, and on Camerons evidence it is clearly stated, the liability was to be on the shares held. The difficulty is to arrange about the subsidy, as I do not think the Earnscleugh Coy. should take it all. I take it that Mr Weaver was authorised to carry out the work for the Syndicate elaimholders and the work was clearly shown as being carried out differently to what was originally intended and no exception was taken to it. As all the parties but Mr Stevenson have paid their portions, and it is unfortunate that Mr Stevenson is a big holder of shares, constquently his loss or profits arc large. I hold there is no liability on the !)()U or Earnscleugh dredging companies, and that the subsidy received from the Government be divided pro rata on the number of holes put down on each claim. Decree of dissolution as asked, with Court costs l~s, solicitors fee £3 3s, Witnesses £3 Its, defendants solicitor £3 3s. Costs to be assessed pro rata in partnership account. George H. Mathison (Mr Brodrick) v Quartz Beef Point Sluicing Co} r . Ltd., claim for C(!2 and order for sale to satisfy lien. The defendants did not appear, and judgment was given for balance of £2B 7s fid due, with costs solicitor £3 3s, court 8s and order made for property to be sold by James Good gar at his auction rooms, Cromwell, on Wednesday loth August. Three insertions of advertisement in “Cromwell Argus,” costs of and incidental to sale to be taxed by Mining Kegistrar and paid out of proceeds of sale. Proceeds of sale to be paid to Clerk of Wardens Court, Cromwell. Terms 25 per cent on fall of hammer, and balance in fourteen days from dale of sale. J. M. Adam (Mining Registrar), v. IV. and C. Waide for forfeiture of extended claim at Limb’s. —Forfeiture decreed with costs 1 1 Us. J. M. Adam (Mining Hegistrar) v. T. Waide, forfeiture of claim at Lindis.—Forfeiture decreed with costs £1 Us. J. M. Adam (Mining Hegistrar) v. Lnggate Mining Coy. Ltd., for claim at Frenchman’s Gully, Lnggate.—Forfeiture decreed with costs CL Is.