BELL v. CLARKE.

Mataura Ensign, Volume 7, Issue 367, 20 June 1884, Page 5

BELL v. CLARKE.

Friday, June G, 1884

The examination of witnesses in this suit was continued from Wednesday. The suit was brought by Mr Gr. M. Bell, of New Zealand, against Mr;.losepli Clarke, in respect to sale of some lands in Southland, New Zealand, to the New Zealand Agricultural Company. The plaintiff claimed that on the accounts L120,000 was due to him, and the defendant alleged that the plaintiff owed him L90,000. Dr Madden and Mr Higgins appeared for the plaintiff ; Mr Webb, Q.C., Mr A'Beckett, and Mr Purves for the defendant.

■ The plaintiff, in continuation of his evidence, said : I had over 5000 acres under cultivation when the Company took possession. Mr Clarke credits me -with LBOOO out of the surplus from M'Neill's Ar'dlusia property, and I say it should be LIO.BOO. Of the first Lloo,ooo concession made to the company I am willing to hear L5640 for short delivery of stock. The LIOO,OOO concession was, in my view, made for short delivery and for the depreciation of the property by rabbits. I frequently lost sheep by their being Stolen fromCroydon. The police gavemeno Satisfaction. The police inspector did not day that he had the place under vigilant surveillance. I am perfectly certain I had sheep stolen in large quantities. The mortality is always heavy in the south of New Zealand. Croydon is no exception No shares in the Company were issued inthe name of my wife. The Company was floated before I got a copy of the London prospectus. i Re-examined by Mr Higgins : Shoepatealing was in vogue seven or eight years before the Company was floated, death rate was not greater on Waimea and Croydon than in the rest of Southland.; The arrangement about, M'Neill's property was that the M'Neills were not to participate in any increased price over the first valuation of the properties, but they expected to be paid for their clip of wool. I Henry Driver, sheepowner, said : I am olie of the vendors of the property to tiie New Zealand Agricultural Company. I owned Dome, Longridge, and Eyre Creek projierties, in conjunction with Mr liarnach. I acted under power of at- | cbrhey .from Mr Clarke during Mr Lar- . nach's absence from New Zealand, from the early part of 1878 till January, 1880. I met .Mr Bell and Mr M'Catighan and Mr M'Neill at Invercargill in October 1878, when the power of attorney to Vogel and Larnach was signed. M'Neill made an agreement as to his property, which I had copied. I sent that copy to Mr Bell subsequently in London, in consequence of a dispute betweenM'Neill and Bell. [This copy was tendered in evidence, but was rejected.) At the meeting at Invercargill it was understood that as to the surplus from M'NeilFs property it should be divided among the vendors rateably, in proportion to the freehold which each contributed ; but that before a division took place , the amount chargeable for the sawmills and crops and improvements should be .deducted. At the time of the sale I had frequent conversations with Bell as to the, state of the property and the rabbits. The rabbits were bad, and' were . increas-. ing, and were a source of fear among the vendors, and Mr Bell especially. . Mr Bell eomplaincd to me, as Clarke's attorney, vary bitterly, that M'Caughan, who was manager for Clarke, was not taking efficient steps to eradicate the rabbits, as had been agreed upon. M'Caughan said that Clarke objected to the expense. Some high words took j place, but eventually M'Caughan agreed to take steps to suppress the rabbits. He agreed to get some wire netting, and do all he could to clear all the rabbits off Clarke's run. Some 50 or 60 rolls of wire netting were taken to the station. Bell afterwards complained to M'Caughan that he was not taking airy steps to clear the run, but M'Caughan contradicted him. In March or April, 1879, Campbell went to inspect on behalf of the Company. I went with him through Croydon (Bell's property) to Wantwood. along the main road, and then to the Waimea (Bell's property), and then on to Longridge. We went over very little of I the Wantwood Estate, but we could see a good deal of it. It was in the middle of the day we saw Wantwood ; it is a bad hour to see rabbits. The further hearing of the case was then postponed till the 23rd inst. | Mr Higgins asked if his Honor would consent to take the evidence of Mr Driver next Aveck, as the witness was obliged to return to New Zealand as soon as possible. ■His Honor said that other cases had ; been set clown for next week, and he therefore could not proceed further with this case, '

Mr Higgms suggested that the evidence of the witness might be taken before a commission, and his Honor said that that was a matter for an application in Chambers.