EXPLOITING AN EXPLORATION COMPANY.

Otago Witness, Issue 2369, 27 July 1899, Page 45

EXPLOITING AN EXPLORATION COMPANY.

At the new trial in Wellington of the case of the General Exploration Company v. Purser on the 14th inst., his Honor Mr Justice Denuiston, in addressing the jury, said: — I shall put the case as shortly as possible to you, as I have a strong impression that you havo already made up your minds. The plaintiff's case is that the defendant combined with Pielsticker and Doncker to defraud the plaintiff company out of a large sum of money. That there was a plot, and a very | simple one, is clear. The idea of the plot was that these persons should inform their principals at Home, recommending the purchase of mining properties for certain large sums of money, and that they should get these sums sent out to them for that purpose, and that they should then put the difference between the real purchase money and the alleged purchase money iv their pockets. It is an exceedingly simple and neat one, and has been carried out with great simplicity , and neatness. They received £43,500 and paid £7500, leaving a balance of £36,000. Of this balance, accepting Purser's figures to be correct, Pielsticker ani Doncker between them took £29,425, and Purser received on his own showing £6575. It is a fact that there was a plot ; that Purser has been used as a factor in ' the plot is clear. It was essential to the plot that there should be a sham vendor to execute the transfers at the fictitious prices. This, as a matter of fact, Purser did. It i 8 beyond dispute ho is tli9 person who did execute the transfers for sham values. It was necessary to havo the same vendor in each case, and of ' course it was necessary some reasons should be given to the Home company where the same person was in each case the vendor, and the exoupo was, in fact, a fraud ou the principals at Home, piosentecl by the agreement of July, 1896, into which Purser entered (an agreement by which Pielsticker bound the General Exploration Company to purchase only through Purser). This document was used by Pielsticker to explain the circumstance of one vendor acting throughout. Not only was the agreement with Purser necessary, but letters signed by Purser referring to options and extensions of options for purchase of properties were sent by Pielsticker to the Home company, and these were also used to , give colour to the fraud. The question seems j | narrowed down to this : On the evidence do | I you accept the explanation offered by Purser that he was an innocent medium in the fraud, or was he an active participant in the fraud, i I desire to draw your attention to the acts and letters of Purser as pffecting tho question of whether he was a participator in the fraud or an innocent medium. Regarding the transactions of the purchase money, his remuneration was practically dictated to him by Pielsticker. He says he was satisfied with it. In the first instance, he received 11 per cent, on the net amount of the plunder, in tho second case 12 per cent., in the third instance 20 per cent., in the fourth instance 25 per cent. So in the Rochfort transaction these three people at their squaring up had a sum of £12,000 sent out by the company to deal with. Of that £3500 is to be handed over to vendors, leaving £8500, of which Pielsticker and Doncker kept £6337 themselves, and handed over to Purser £2167— that is, 25 per cent, of the inonev. You ha.ye to ask yourselves why Pielsticker and Doncker, if there was no joint scheme, hhoukl hand over 25 per cent, of an amount of which they at least were defrauding the company. Purser's explanation is that ho knew that there was a swindle going on, but that he was not swindling the company or his employers. If the result of considering these matters is to leave your minds undecided, the defendant has the right to the benefit of the balance. Remember that fraud is a case that has to be proved strongly and clearly. As to damages, you are entitled to find for tho whole amount, for the reason that if there has bpen a swindle every single person engaged is liable for that swindle. Supposing a man was robbed by footpads — and this is the same thing as a robbery, — it is no answer for one of his assailants to say, "It is true you were robbed of a purse and robbed of a watch, but I have only the watch ; the other man has the purse, and is liable for it." Whoever takes part in a joint robbery is liable for the whole. The mere fact that it is a very large sum need not trouble you. I think you have pretty well made up your minds by this time, so I need not detain you further.

The Jury then retired, and after an absence of four minutes returned with a unanimous verdict in favour of the plaintiff company for the full amount— namely, £36.000, of which

they had been defrauded, together with all preceding costs. Counsel for the plaintiff company (Mr H. D. Bell) then informed the court that £8000 of the stolen moueys had already been recovered from Pielsticker, and the verdict against Purser was then reduced by this amount to £28,000 and costs.