EXPLORATION AND EXPLOITATION.

Otago Daily Times, Issue 11301, 20 December 1898, Page 3

EXPLORATION AND EXPLOITATION.

i. , (Daily Times, December 19.^. Two civil cases of importance were tried at the recent.sittings of .Supreme Court in Blenheim. We have already shown what one of these cases was. It' furnished the revelation of the forma-, tion of a syndicate of ttiree-r-two mem-' .tiers.-of the legal profession and a member of. the Liberal party of New Zea-. land—to exploit the law affecting the newspapers of the colony by means of libel actions. It was an instructive case,. .: and* the one that followed it was, in another ' direction; not less instructive. In this case also the formation of a syndicate of three for exploitation purposes was alleged, a foreign mining' company (the General Exploration Company), itself.incorporated as an exploiting concern^ being the chosen object of the attentions of the triumvirate. Larc;e. sums were dealt with in this, latter e;i.terprise, for, while Rogers, Sinclair, and Mills received--a verdict against one paper for a .beggarly £219, and they were two days; later mulcted in costsamounting to £151 as the result of their suit against another paper, the amount of which the General Exploration Company complains that it has been absolutely spoiled is £36,000.., . For the recovery of this sum an action was brought against Edward Purser, of.Blenheim, one of the alleged syndicate, the two men who'were represented as.'having.conspired with him to defraud the company-having disappeared. One' of them,'a man named Relsticker, was, . at-the time at which the fraud was said, to have been perpetrated, the company's' attorney in New Zealand, and the other, whose name was Dencker, was its confidential agent. .The action against Purser failed, the jury finding in favour of'their townsman that there was^ no conspiracy as alleged. A new trial is to be moved for, -and in these circumstances we are precluded from commenting; on the 'merits of the case; _.'. Some of the more peculiar features of ■ thetransactions disclosed in'it may,' how-ever,-be recorded. .It-was .alleged by/ .the plaintiff . company—a,' . company i formed in Germany-^that fraud and coui spiracy r were involved in the dealings ■ between' Purser aii'd'.'.. the company's agents, in respect of certain claims iii the. Westland ; district. These claims were .known as . the "Aurora," "Sm- ..-. press," ." Four Mile," "Bendigo," and ; " Rbchefort."1 ' The "Aurora" was the 'first claim that was" dealt with. Purser pegged off this claim with a man:named Mullens (whom his evidence described •it ks worthless),/and placed it under >-.- offer to Pielsticker for the company. Purser's; own statement in the witness box as to! the terms .upon which this ..••..'',. claim was sold by him is frank and sug- ':'.■';■ gestive: ,- ■ ' ;■■•■ ■'■ --: ■-. -. ,-. :-:-. • '"•..( liWestport Pielsticker said,." We agree to buy the, Aurora, and will go to Wellington to complete the-business." In Wellington■ Piol-" ' Bticker said, " Here's a cheque for £6000 for the • ■'.-.' Aurora; give me a, receipt for it." Witness re- ■ .plied, VI. never £6000 for the Aurora." '-. ■; ".No," the. other replied, "you don't'suppose. ■: I am such a'fool as to give it to you; you shall be'weU paid for yourclainvbut I must have a-receipt foi this,amount as a face value for. flotation purposes." Before' he banked the ' .'■. cheque Pielsticker said .to, witness,- "I want a . draft payable to Eutter in London for £2400 and. ' . I', want cash £2900, pay, the; .exchange; on the . .'...'■, draft .£42, 'and.- the ..balance -_ia ' y.o.urs." ;He , figured, the .thing out, "and..found he had. £658 .. toiget for himself.'.He' was'-,iinder the lmpres- '•.■•■""; sion that Eutter belonged, to the'<firm. He..was: satisfied' v/ith' ,tH'e,'£6B3..'He carried out the above' instructions;.:''. ■ ■ ■"' ' ~"• ; ' The "Empress" and ."Fourj Mile" were .-•.;'■ sold by Purser; to the iu-one /: lot for £9500. ;; He had himself paid '■}.^ -£23&o;fbk the ;"^o^;Mile,^ and in ac- ;- cordahce mth tPielstick?r'sl instructioiis. ;. her.remitted,1, ; out -of they amount' ■"'■.',:0f,.."; the ;, cheque,.' r a ;''''draft.' ' for '■:'■■■■ £2100' to" thei:mysterious'-.Rutter, and: -.drew cash by separate "cheques of'£lßoo, and £2383.,ij ; This left.Purser apronti-b'n ■.}'.;■ this -transaction':of £867,' after, allowing ".. for'the amount' hei himself, paid for^the' "Four; Mile.":- Curiously it appeared: from the evidence.of the sohci-' •'■: tor'who;'prepared the .transfer of -this' latter - claim frdm. the ; original,- vendors , .tb/Purser that the"'instruetiohs for the ■.-•■;. transfer were 'given by, 'Pielsticker. ■ For the ;"Bendigo"; clsini* -and/the'%ate'r. '.v'--'-ri^ts";Cpnne.6ieid.:..'iritKi:,it! Purser gave' ■-.-'.."' £1675' in i 'Westport,; and then; sold .to . 'the^ompany^'; Wellington for £16,000. ■■■',- Out bf;ithis; £9621' lof ■ drafts :and cash,; and the balance that ■. accrued to Purser after'allowing for all ■ charges.'was, he isays, £2893^,; The "JRpchefort" :jvas bought by Purser for £360()-';aiid sbld;by;huii,tb the company, ■-.: ; fbr^£l2,ooo^;and'/ '■; his came, to :'■'" £2167;',; These; transactions, occurred;be- ;.:.; tween':October j. 189G,:.and March^; 1897, . and'as/; according, to:' Purser's own. evi- •:■'■!■: dence,.:the;prbfife;.he made on' the sale of claims to the company during those few months were £6585, it is clear that hie;'did;-haridsbmely..'VVhateyer "may be .'..-', said' respecting the /'character of; the . transactibris,'it 'must bb. recognised; that ' /Purser•; made; excellent use of, his oppor- ■•-.:,:' tunities'!1; A wealthy; company, had come inihis: way—accompany,which, as Piel- ;•: -sticker.told him, "did not deal with tin pot things,'?; and' which,' ''for flotation . purposes,'.must always.have a large face value on the; options "-^-and he obtained 'a; monopoly /; of its^business by making an arrangement iwith Pielsticker . that ... -" whatever . options ■ were secured within a.certain radius .of Westport should pass : through his hands. ■ Purser' was < ratecollector ■in , Blenheim when.' Pielsticker, who ;■■■} had come .to know .about him through jstaying at his sister's'boarding houseatSouthehd, first communicated wjth .him—which was • through letter,- land the result of their acquaintance.was: '«'■' bo --Satisfactory.-.! to. ;the;; former that whereas some' evidence was given of his hdving.been in an impecunious conditi.bn in; 1896,'itwas adduced from himself "that he has now. got money invested, in house property and gas-shares, and'that he;has distributed hundreds of pounds, in repaymehts and advances, among- his family. ;While Purser, has . thus" benefited, the ; circumstance's of Pielsticker and Dencker are* shrouded in mystery.' :': Pielsticl;er opportunely left ' Westport in. March, , 1897^-withhi two days of the arrival, of Mr E. 6. Brad-: dbn, the company's '.;."present'-" general manager :and attqniey in the.colony,—. and is now: out of ;New Zealand, and so ;is .Dencker, who seoms,,throughput to have played' a rather subordinate part. Moreover, there is Ilutter, whose name comes into the pr.iceedings only/as; the payee of the drafts'which Purser5 was instructed -to remit io England.; Frank Rutter, of' The Hirst, '■. Alpertern ■ Park, Harrow,' is the' foil .name;and address aslgiven.by.the resident, manager in.the colony pf Reuters Agency,-.whose 'disV'dpsurey'^^ under 'instructions Ifrqm' headquarters :in London, of information, as to messages;, forwarded ' through him was one ■ of: the surprising features '=of this case. JWho is Ilutter ?.■'•'!.What is his connection with, the matter? And where does the ; General Exploration Company . come in? It has ibaid £36^00 for five

mining claims, two of .which ("tho "Aurora" and " Empress")-are said by it to be wholly worthless. My. Bradclon stated in his evidence that he arrived just in, time to .prevent work;.on the "Aurora" and "Empress," but1 he mv not hesitate to, report on these two and ■the "Four Mile":.generally,•'.-• "making the report as favourable1 as,possible;-as lit was intended for flotation purposes." In this report Mi* Braddon ■ actiially showed 'an expected . net profit of £19,600 from the sea deposit ;and£72Ul) from cement purposes.' .Further, Mr ,-Braddon said:'; '. ;-: ;'.' ' . - ', The working was expected .to last over six and a-hnl£ years at 1500 tons per day,1, He did not report on the " Bendigo " claim. •.. He ■ reported the net profit from ..the 'Mtochefort';' claini, would .be .under present conditions. £21,000. for ..10 years', working. .Under, other, conditions, there : would, be a net. profit of £10,000. These reports might have. been Used ifor flotation. purposes. :,He had ,a different ■ opinion of the properties. n'owj' The company's ;intention was to develop, the properties and then sell them.. The " Bencfigo " was reported ion by,'Mr"Haber,'a;mining engineer from Germany. Van Gambit (director.of the company) was also a ' mining' '■ man.- He 'estimated' the: profit from the "Bendigo'.' .claim'would be a ydarly .oneofTJ32,ooo.for three-years, Witness had proved those estimates to.be utterly wrong. Tho total, profits on these . bases'. would bz jii62,000. ..- ,;■.;/■ ■..''■ .... •. •-,•. ■:

Such are some of the more interesting partJicuWrs elicited in this second instructive case at. sittings of the Supreme Court which should 'always be memorable in Blenheim. '';