Objection to Application.

Lake Wakatip Mail, Issue 4138, 19 December 1933, Page 5

Objection to Application.

SOHO COMPANY v W. H. PATERSON. ; TITLE TO CLAIM DISPUTED. When .an application for a claim of 18 acres on the south branch of the Soho creek, near the junction with the Arrow river, was made by William Hugh Paterson in the Warden’s Court on Tuesday last there was an objection by the Soho Mining Company, the objectors claiming that Paterson was the manager of their company and that he was consequently not entitled to peg the -ground unless it was on their .behalf. Mr W. A. Harlow appeared for the objectors and’ Mr Paterson conducted his own case, and contended that he was not the manager.

Mr Harlow explained that early in 1932 a Mr Maurice Dunk ley, then a solicitor in Wellington, met the applicant, Mr W .H. Paterson, through Dunkley having befriended Paterson’is son in New Guinea, and Paterson approached Dunkley, saying that he knew a good mining locality on the banks of the Billy Creek. Dunkley asked how much it would cost to (prospect the locality and Paterson told him it would be about £l5O or £200.. whereupon Dunkley .said that he would put up the money* He went to Central Otago and the area was pegged out by Paterson who drew the application up* Dunkley, although _.a solicitor, knew nothing about mining. The claim was one mile 50 chains long, with a width of five chains and Paterson represented that the boundary was live chains from and parallel with the Billy Creek. The plan drawn up by Paterson showthe Billy as a straight line whereas it actually took two largo bends. Whether Paterson knew he was not getting the aim he thought he could not say, but he must have thought that the claim had a curved boundary, otherwise a large portion of the other side would have been included. As time went on the £IOO or £l5O led nowhere and the claim was then capitalised at £4500 and the concern was then floated into a company called the Soho Mining do. When the renewal was; applied for Dunkley drew the plan himself and the sketch plan then showed the line to be a wave. Paterson was working this area first with Duukley and the former was the only experienced miner in the company, and

even after further capital was intioduced, Paterson was the only mining' maui in the concern. They Company agreed to make a grant of TBO to Paterson; to assist- him to build a house. The secretary of tlbe company instead of writing to Paterson coniirming his appointment as managei wrote to Paterson’s son about some other business and informed the t>on of the appointment. Time wont on and it eventually transpired that the p’roispects showed that the lead of gold, did not lie within the four pegs. A small portion lay within butt the greater portion lay outside. The first occurrence was rather sinister. A man called Angelo applied for the area at the lower end. Later on Angelo left the Dominion and transferred the area to Paterson’s son. Subsequently Paterson and a man called McGregor, it working partner, had a number ot quarrels. About September the\ had difficulty in persuading Paterson to to resume working. Wliem Hollmg>, another working partner, who had boon away, came back, lie noticed t;hat i.uu area outride had been pegged. Paterson admitted that he bad pegged it for himself and H oil lags was surprised to learn that the area was Inoi enclosed in their pegs. Later, Paterson, gave the ingenious .explanation that he had pegged it out for -1110 company. Tlhc matter at issue \\as that Paterson was, and still was, the manager of the Soho Mining Coy. He prospected the area, capital ot £4aoo was put up, and in consequence ol what ho saw there he pegged that area in his own name. In addition Paterson was one of the vendors of the present company and was alloteid shares. This case- was one on all fours with the Nicholson v fcjcaiidinav ian Company 24 N.Z. Law Ileptats 452. in fact' this was a stronger case be-

[cause Paterson was not only the manager but also a vendor. He was still the manager because there ihiad been no motion to 'lhe jaanteary by the directors and he had never resigned. . 1 i Arthur Maurice Dimkiey, solicitor, formerly of Wellington and now practising in Oamaru, said that he ihiad (met Patensoin’ls son in New Guinea and had become friendly, Uphill that time he had had no experience of mining in N.Z. Later he met Paterson who had put a proposition to him, saying that he had prospected the Billy Greek up to a certain point in 1915 and as a result had discovered an old river bed. Witness decided to finance it and accepted a half share. Paterson and his son Geopge pegged out the area and he understood that there was sufficient ground in it to include the old bed. He did not know anything about angle pegs. After pegging witness .and Paterson drew un the application. Witness them went back to Wellington in auticipa-' tio.u of instructions to proceed lo New Guinea and gave Paterson a power of attorney, in the meantime the application had been granted and witness returned to. the claim. He put on two men at £5 a week between them and Paterson was in charge. As time went on the capital proved inadequate. Witness wrote for a boring plant which co.st approximately £IOO to bring it to the claim. He then went away as by that time ho was getting short of money, and he got Mr Holdings to come in as a financial partner for £2OO. Hollings got a quarter share, Z Paters on contributing L-iOth and witness 3-lGth. in. Febbuary of this year the license ran out and witness re-applied lor the area. When the. company was formed witness, as. legal holder of privilege, gave assignment. The capital' was £4500. On the formation of the company, it was understood that Paterson was to carry on as manager,. It was now thought that a good deal of the old lead lay alongside the present claim. The area applied for by Mr Paterson lay just alongside their boundary. Witness was cross-examined by Mir Paterson. When they started there ho said., it was their intention &> ascertain if there was an old channel as indicated by Professor Park. William Henry Holdings, miner, residing at Arrowtown, said that he was formerly a solicitor prectising in Wellington. Witness recounted the purchase by him of an eighth share for £2OO. in 1932. Dunkley told him that they would want another £SOO and witness went to. Arrowtown and had a look at the claim. Mr Paterson told him that the claim went five chains back from the Billy.. It was described to. him as. an old channel which ran more or less parallel to and in very close proximity to the present bed of the Billy. Witness stayed there three days and was 'perfectly satisfied. He went back to Wellington and got together a few, of his .personal friends who subscribed £SOO. Paterson had .told him that they would have to drive about 300 feet to roach the old river bed. 'Witness aeturmedi to, the claim, thinking it was sufficiently good to put his whole, time in. They bought pipes, plant, and they also spent money in keep. Once again a conference was called and it was decided la call for more, money. It was arranged that witness should go. to Wellington toi raise another £SOO. and this money was obtained. One o/ the conditions was that Mr Paterson was to remain as manager. On. returning they put up the hut as the claim was frozen. They then wanted to carry on with the claim and Mr Paterson replied that the ground was still frozen. They differed with him, iso Mr Paterson suggested that they should carry' on and clean, out the tunnel, as lie ’wanted to assist his son on his claim. Their prospecting operations showed that the lead .Commenced just at the end. of the tumineiLi He understood the claim was 5 chains wide. That being so they had pegged the aid lead He. had understood that the claim fallowed the curved line of the creek. George Paterson’s claim had been pegged by a man named Angelo some months ago and this ground they found consequent on their prospecting operations .was the extension of that lead* When. Paterson sou spoke of working on his son George’s claim that was the one he referred to.. About this time there was a dispute between Paterson and McGregor, and on .account r of this Mr Patterson refused to come up, leaving them at a loss what to do. Witness appealed to him hot to toiako the shareholders suffer foil 1 Si is personal differences and Mr Paterson consented the following day “to keep l an eye on them.” Later there was another dispute between Mr Paterson and Me Gregor, Witness went up to Wellingtouq .Spent a day there and returned, When lie came back he saw (a peg ionJ what he thought was their claim. This was on October LGtli. Witness and McGregor traced other pegs from the trenches. Witness went to Paterson's house and told him about the peg. Paterson denied any knowledge of it, as also did George Paterson. Conversation centred round other topics and then switched back to the pegs, pegs, and Paterson then admitted that lie luad pegged the ground, saying that it. was. not on the witness is claim. Paterson then explained the straight line theory. Next day witness and McGregor interviewed Paterson and they had hardly started when McGregor interrupted saying, “The fact is, Mr Paterson, you are trying to jum.p our claim.” Mr Paterson there upon replied ,“i had pegged that ground for the company but now you are making a fu'sis about It I am going to> peg jt for myself.” Witness then reminded Paterson that lie had told him the .previous night that he had pegged the ground out for himself. “The conference then broke up in disorder,” witness added. Witness asked Paterson how lie could peg out ground 11-11011 lie was their manager, and Paterson replied that he was not their manager and never had been . Witness understood that George Paterson was winning gold

o.u his' claim. To Mr Harlow: McGregor was uppointed registered secretary of tlio company.When the applicant’s case was opened applicant said that he Jbiad anticipated that the objectors would call McGregor, and he asked for an

adjournment till in ext court day so that he could l call McGregor.The court consented tiO' an adjournme,ut and applicant to jxay the costs.