MINING CASES IN COURT.

Otago Witness, Issue 2058, 3 August 1893, Page 16

MINING CASES IN COURT.

(R.M. Court, Wednesday, July 26.) (Before Mr E. H. Carew, R.M.) Briscoe and Co. v. John White, The Round Hill Syndicate (Limited), and George Evans (of Riverton).—Claim £21 6s 4d, for goods supplied.— Mr A. A. Finch appeared for the plaintiff company, Mr F, R. Chapman for Mr White, and Mr W. A. Sun for Mr Evans.— Mr Finch stated that in Optobpr of last year the defendant George Evans of Riveiton, as general manager of the Round Hill i'Syndicwte {limited), ordered f rom Brisooe, Drys- ! dale, and 00, (who were identical with the firm of

Briacoe and Co., Dunedin) three hydraulic gauges with certain improvements attached. The Sydney branch executed the order and sent the goods to the Dunedin branch, instructing them to invoice them to the syndicate. On the arrival of the goods at Dunedin the branch here, knowing nothing of the company, declined to forward the goods till some responsible persons authorised them to do so. Consequently inquiries were made, and the firm found that Mr J. White was interested in the syndicate. Mr White, on being approached id the matter, said he would write to Mr Evans and let the firm know. Later on he stated to Briscoe and Co. that it was all right, arid that they could forward the goods. The company, he stated, was in a sound financial condition, and the goods would be paid for if the invoice were sent to Mr R. H. Leary, the secretary. On this representation, which was not in writing, however, the goods were forwarded. Subsequently the account was sent out to Mr Leary, but when payment was asked the firm were referred to Mr White. The latter refused to pay, as he stated the price Was excessive. He offered to pay the amount of Briscoe, Drysdale and Co.'s original invoice to the Dunedin firm, but it was pointed out that this invoice represented the net value of the goods only, and the profit had to be added afterwards. The syndicate was not mentioned in the " Gazette," or registered as required by the " Foreign Companies Act 1884," and in fact there was nothing to indicate that any such company existed. Consequently action had been taken against Mr White, who authorised the goods to be sent, and against Mr Evans, who erdered them, and against the syndicate if one should be disclosed in the evidence.— The defence was that there was no syndicate now in existence— as it was in liquidation— that Mr White was not responsible as he had not guaranteed the account, and that Mr Evans was not responsible, because as the order was from Riverton, it was outside the jurisdiction of the court; also, because he had ordered the goods for the Round Hill Mining Company, but had used the papers of the syndicate by mistake. — His Worship, after hearing evidence and argument from both sides, intimated that he would reserve his decision.

(Dunedin R.M. Court, Fbiday, July 28).

Briscoe and Co. v. John White, The Round Hill. Syndicate (Limited), and George Evans (of JRiverton).— Claim £21 6s 4d, for goods supplied. —Mr A. Finch appeared for the plaintiff company, Mr F. R. Chapman for Mr White, and Mr W. A. Sim for Mr Evans.— ln this previously-heard case his Worship gave judgment as follows :—

If there is any case against either Mr White or Mr Evans it must be for fraudulent misrepresentation, but the evidence proves nothing like it. Mr Evans, in sending the order for the goods, wrote' upon a sheet of letter paper having a lithographed heading " The Round Hill Syndicate (Limited)," the name of a company formerly owning the same claim, and then managed by Mr Evans. This was simply a clerical error through not striking out the word syndicate and inserting the word company. The plaintiffs knew of neither company, and were not in any way misled by the error. When they made the discovery, the evidence does not show; but in the first account sent in to Mr Leary the Round Hill Mining Company was debited, so they knew of it at this time, and appear to have been satisfied to look to that company for payment. Mr White's connection with the transaction is this : Mr Thompson, the plaintiffs accountant, was making inquiries to ascertain whether the company was a good mark to send the goods to, and calling upon Mr White asked him if he was chairman of directors. Mr White told him that he was not, and that he knew nothing about the order for gauges, but would write to Mr Evans about it. Mr Thompson says he cannot remember the words used, but the conversation led him to think that Mr White was acting for the company. Mr Thompson says that subsequently he met Mr White, who told him he could send on the goods, it was all right, and he was to send the invoice to Mr Leary. The invoice was sent and was not paid , simply because there was a dispute about the price. Mr White's evidence does not quite agree with Mr Thompson's ; but supposing it did, Mr White's action has not been repudiated by the Round Hill Mining Company (Limited), and where is the cause of action? As against Mr Evans, I understand plaintiffs' contention to be that he is liable, because his letter showed that he purported to order the goods on behalf of the Round Hill Syndicate (Limited), which company does not now carry on business in New Zealand. If there had been a fraudulent misrepresentation to that effect, and the plaintiffs had suffered damage, no part of that cause of action arose in this district, so I cannot see that I can decide the action in respsct to thiß defendant. Judgment for defendant, White, with costs of court ps, witness 20s, professional costs 31s 6d. No jurisdiction as against Evans, struck out (with expenses of rail fare) 483 Bd, professional costs 31s 6d. The Round ttill Syndicate (Limited), no service.