FORFEITURE OF COROMANDEL MINES.

New Zealand Herald, Volume XXIX, Issue 8854, 16 April 1892, Page 3

FORFEITURE OF COROMANDEL MINES.

TO THE EDITOR. Sir, —In reply to " Shareholder of the Royal Oak Gold Mining Company," in your issue of the 12th, permit me to say that there has been no mystery in connection with the management of the company so far as I am and have been concerned. Had there been any " mysterious" transaction, could I have held my position The shareholders, if they consider it worth their while to adopt my suggestion, should convene a meeting and appoint a committee of inquiry, and I am prepared to attend such meeting at any time ami give an account of my stewardship. With regard again to the office being at 'Joromandel, I do not see how that affects the present issue. When the office was in Auckland shareholders asked no questions until they thought there was a good show for a dividend ; then, and then only, shareholders were pleased with the management, but ruined the prosperity of the mine by appropriating all the available capital which should have been held in-'hand to carry on mining operations. If a cull should, however, be required, shareholders find fault and grumble. " Shareholder, " however, wants to know Mr. Witheford's position towards the company. It is a peculiar one to me as well as to Shareholder," and 1 can only explain what I know concerning the matter. Mr. Witheford, since the Melbourne Exhibition, was entrusted with the sale of three mining properties, viz., Tokatea, Royal Oak, and Harbour View. Upon .Mr. Witheford's representations that he had been successful, in floating a strong financial company (on terms agreed to, which may be referred to in minute-book) representations by cable and otherwise, lie obtained from the directors transfers of the titles into his own name, and affairs have been in a state of turmoil ever since. Re loss fit title and forfeiture by the Warden, .Mr. Witheford is solely to blame. When Warden Greenfield attended the Court at Coromandel, during Warden Northcroft's absence, a surrender of the greater part of the ground, which was considered of no value to the company, was accepted by him. It was then agreed that Mr. Witheford should hand over the titles to Warden Greenfield for endorsement. This he did not do. Mr. Witheford being the registered owner, holding against the wishes of the secretary— directors can answer for themselves —was pursued by a miner named McLean, and, in Mr. Witheford's name, the company accepted a fine of £10, which it paid. When the protection expired, Witheford, being refused by Minister Seddou and the Warden further protection, agreed to a surrender as before; but, according to bis own showing, _ instead of presenting the titles to the Warden for endorsement, they were discovered to be in Sydney. At last he reported them by the Waihora, but it was too late. The Warden had made up his mind that it should go this time. Hence the reason for the forfeiture. These are the facts of the case, anil Mr. Henry Brett, Chairman of Directors, and Mr. John Buckland, director, who are in Auckland, will confirm the statement. .The present applicants for the claim are J. H. Witheford and William Home. Let the shareholders look to themselves if they put any value on the property. If not. then let Witheford or Home have it. If shareholders have auy further questions concerning the Royal Oak company or mine, in reason, 1 am prepared to answer them ; but having placed my resignation in the chairman's hands, 1 cannot well convene the meeting. I would also suggest that " Shareholder" put his name to the bottom of the letter, so that we may know him. — am, &c, W. Houxe. Coromandel, April 13, 1892.