A MINING CASE.

Evening Star, Issue 12167, 11 April 1904, Page 4

A MINING CASE.

At the Magistrate’s Court to-day Mr E, H. Carew, S.M. heard the case of Thomas Steel (for whom Mr Solomon appeared) v. George Neill (Mr D. D. Macdonald), a claim for £43 10s BcL—Mr Solomon said that this was a simple case. Defendant held shares in the Bign ell’s No Town Gold Dredging Company, and wished to sell them. He negotiated to that end with Mr Watson, broker, who sold them on February 27 for 11s. He sent out the statutory notices to both parties. A day -or two afterwards Neill called at Mr Watson’s office and obtained transfer forms for filling in, and said be was going to transfer in a day or two, but did not do so. The shares went up, and Neill met Steel in the street, but did not refuse to complete until March. Steel then asked him when he was going to complete, and apparently that was the first time that Neill knew Steel was the bnyer. When he found out he said: “ I will see von and Watson first,” and re fused to complete the transaction. By this time the shares were worth 20s. Mr Watson wrote to Neill, telling him that he had bought shares to complete the transaction, but Neill would not complete, A letter from Watson to Neill warning the latter that shares would be bought in the open market if he failed to complete was produced.—Watson, in his evidence, said that Neil! had never definitely told witness that he would not deliver the shares, but kept putting him off.—A good deal of evidence was taken.—Mr Macdonald said that the defence was that ISeill had had various conversat’ons with Mr Watson about selling the shares. He had a scheme on hand of selling som-' shares for the purpose of bringing down the market. Watson and he were of the opinion that if 200 shares were sold the market would be lowered, and they could then get shares at their own price. Neill wanted to sell 100 if they could get Steel to sell 100. Neill had a conversation with Steel, and could not get him to agree. But Neill’s evidence would contradict Steel’s in that he would say that Steel did not guite refuse, but sard he would discuss the matter with Watson. Subsequently Neill had further conversations with Watson, who said that he thought he could make the arrangement desired. The whole object of the thing was to sell on the Exchange, and so lower the market, and then they were to buy immediately. Neill gave Watson instructions to buy in immediately after the 200 shares were sold. Watson had admitted in his evidence that he had agreed with Neill, and told him that hj? believed 200 shares of any stock would be sufficient to lower the market, Neill was possessed of special information with regard to this company. He (Neill) had no shares at all; his wif-‘ had sixty. When Neill ascertained from Steel for the first time that he was the buyer, and that the sale had taken place in Watson's office, he repudiated the contract, and told Steel that he would . ot deliver the shares.—Judgment was given for plaintiff for £43 15s, • '' .. of the shares on March 19 (date of the breach of contract), with costs amounting to £7 14s.