GOLDMINING CASE

New Zealand Herald, Volume LXXII, Issue 22202, 31 August 1935, Page 9

GOLDMINING CASE

CLAIM FOR A REFUND JUDGMENT FOR DEFENDANT [by TELEGUArn —PRESS ASSOCIATION'] CHIiISTCHURCH. Friday A claim against Thomas Newburgh and Sons, sharebrokers, and the Mining House (N.Z.), Limited, a mining investment company, both of Christchurch, was heard in the Supreme Court before Mr. Justice Northcroft. The plaintiff was Gerald Robert Mating, merchant, of Christchurch, and tlic claim was for a refund of £l5O, with interest. It was alleged that an agent of defendants, or one of them, had induced the plaintiff to advance £l5O to join a syndicate whose object was stated to be to acquire and develop an area on the west coast for goldmining. It was claimed that no functioning syndicate had been formed, and, alternatively, that the representations made had been false. The defence was a denial of the allegations. Mr. C. S. Thomas, who appeared for Thomas Newburgh and Sons, moved for a nonsuit at the close of the plaintiff's case. He said the claim against his client was based, firstly, on the receipt of money, and, secondly, on an alleged fraud. It was clear that the firm of Thomas Newburgh and Sons was secretary to Mining House (N.Z.), Limited, and the first sum of £4O was obviously received by the firm as an agent. He submitted, too, that there had been no evidence of fraud by anyone. It was extraordinary, he said, that such a serious allegation should have been made against such a reputable firm and nothing produced to substantiate it. Mr. M. 0. Barnett. who appeared for [Mining House (N.Z.), Limited, moved for judgment for the defendant or a nonsuit. The evidence had failed entirely, be said, to prove the plaintiff's case in any respect. " I have to hold that fraud was not onlv not proved, but, in fairness to defendants. 1 should say quite definitely that the case made by plaintiff himself shows no fraud." said His Honor, who gave judgment for the defendant.