MINING VENTURES.

New Zealand Times, Volume LXXI, Issue 4378, 8 June 1901, Page 3

MINING VENTURES.

BLAINE v. McKBRROW. Judgment was given by the Chief Jus. tice in the Supreme Court yesterday in the case of John Bcntick Biaine, mining expert, v. John Craig McKerrow, merchant. Mr Hadfield appeared'for the plaintiff, and Mr Menteath for the defendant. His Honor said that five issues in this case had been left to the Court to decide, and in accordance with the decision of these issues accounts would, if necessary, be taken by the Registrar. There wer© two claims made by the plaintiff in dispute in the action. He said (1) that he was entitled to the sum of £6O for the surrender of a mining claim called the Mount Pleasant Extended, and (2) that his wages at £4 per week lasted up to the end of January this year. The defendant said he never agreed to give £6O for the sur_ render of tho Mount P'easant Extended claim, and that the wages . at £4 per week, which began on the 6th July, 1896, terminated in the end of April, 1898. The question was to whom, the plaintiff or the defendant, credence was to b© given. To answer that question the surroundings must be examined. The plaintiff had boon in the defendant’s employment as a storeman at a wage of about £2 10s per week. At that time the defendant was carrying on a land, estate, etc, agency business in Wellington. In 1896, attention was directed to mining on the West Coast of the South Island; and the plaintiff was engaged tp go to the Coast to look for mining claims and to prospect. The defendant’s counsel stated that his client’s duties were analogous to those of a “scout.” He was to receive £4 a week as wages, but out of that amount he had to pay his own hotel expenses, etc. He obtained some claims for the plaintiff, and one of them was sold at a handsome profit. He received his wages from time to time, and seemed to have been paid monthly. On the 2nd December, 1896, a settlement of accounts was come to. Th© defendant entered in the time-book kept by the plaintiff the settlement of the accounts. A statement of the defendant’s was fully corroborated by Cn© plaintiff’s own time, book, and this corroboration disposed of the statement made by the plaintiff that he was to get £6O for the surrender of the Mount Pleasant extended claim. There was no corroboration of the plaintiff’s story about the £6O. ■ It was nevpr brought to his credit in any account, and it was not claimed in the first two statements of claim in this action. It was a most improbable story that the defendant should pay £6O to his employee for competing with him in the taking up of claims. His Honor believed tho statement of the defendant and not that of the plaintiff. The other main question was, “Was an arrangement mad© in the end of April, 1898, that the £4 a week wages was to cease, the plaintiff being paid board at th© isvt' mine at Karamea, the board of his children being paid, and small sums given to him to meet smaller expenditure, he to refund these advances out of his anticipated profits?’’ That was the defendant’s story. The plaintiff denied it, and said no difference was made in the arrangement that had been in existence since the 12th December, 1896. When it was considered that both the plaintiff and the defendant be. lieved that the sluicing claim at Karamea was bound to turn out a very profitable enterprise—it was thought to bp worth £2so,ooo—and that the plaintiff was to' get 10 per cent, of the' profits, it was more likely that he went in the mine on the terms mentioned by the defendant, looking for the profits that ho as a prospector of the claim believed to 'he certain to be realised. The letters of the defendant to the plaintiff seemed to bear out the defendant’s story. Tho probabilities were against the story of the plaintiff, and when his memory had been tested, as in the case of the settlement of the accounts, it had been found wanting. That a working man could leave his wages unpaid for two years and nine months, and treat himself as a wages man whilst living in Wellington, his Honor did not understand. In his opinion this main question must also be answered adversely to the plaintiff. The issues were answered as follows: 1. The plaintiff, in consideration of the ten per cent of profits, was to do his best for the defendant. 2. The contract for wages expired in the end of April, 1898; the ten per cent profits continued. 8 and 4. Xhe plaintiff is

not entitled to wages from the end of April, 1898. 5. The plaintiff is not entitled to £6O for the surrender of the Mount Pleasant Extended claim. The other moneys paid will be found when accounts are taken. The question of costs was reserved, and judgment was also reserved rill accounts were taken or the taking of accounts were abandoned.