PRIDE OF TUAPEKA.

Otago Witness, Issue 2426, 12 September 1900, Page 23

PRIDE OF TUAPEKA.

TO THE EDITOR

Sir, — Having noticed a deal of correspondence lately on the above company's claim, I may state that I have every confidence in our directors, who aie at present having their claim, thoroughly prospected. The resvtlts of their efforts are so far satisfactory, and the prospects obtained from the shafts sunk are highly payable for dredging. According to the prospects reported by the secretaary to have been -obtained from Nos. 2 and 3 shafts— namely, 12gr and 6gr- to 'the yard-- -the 'company's " dredge', which has 3ft buckets, and nine to the minute, taking as low an average as 3gr to the yard, arkl only working five days a week would give' a return of at least 30oz per week, and then only, turning over 40 yards per hour, which a largs diedge could do in quarter the time. Then t again, the working expenses are very small, as I t>rn told on good authority that Boz per week would pay everything, leaving a balance; oi about .6200 per month to be divided among the shareholders, which would pay a dividend of about Sd per share. Now, Sir, if the dissatisfied shareholder can show me any .better investment for capital I "will be rrro'st happy to heir of ik~"Y6u-will notice in my calculation I have made provision for stoppag-es, etc., which people are so apt to forget when workingihe assumed returns on paper. " ■ In conclusion, Sir, I may express not only my satisfaction, but the satisfaction of the local shareholders of the directors' appointment of Mr S. Uren to superintend the prospecting He is a practical miner, and one well fitted to give an unbiassed report. — I am, etc., Roxburgh Shareholder. TO THE EDITOR. Sir, — About two weeks ago there appeared m'the mining columns a quotation from tha Tuapeka Times of August IS .referring to tha depth of wash in the much-talked-of Pride of luapeka claim. Messrs Henderson and Cowlea say they are m a position to know a good deal about the claim, and that they " consider there ??■} at least '3ft to 4ft splendid wash." If so, no-.v came it to be stated on the prospectus that " the claim has been thoroughly prospected and an average depth of 14ft to 16ft washexists." Why did not the vendors and the brokers who floated the company at once have produced their rn-oofs that the prospectus was correct when the facts were questioned, in-str-ad of getting the ground bored at the public-, expense to find out the tiuth ? It will be foimcj that the individuals who have been taking at hind m the notation of the claim will get a. big surprise if, -they consider ior one moment! that the shareholders will go on with dredging) the claim m the face of only 3ft to 4ft wash. They can, and will, demand that the claim shall be in its entirety as stated on -the prospectus. Had the prospectus stated the facta as reported by Messrs Henderson and Cowles, the company would never have been floated. I fail to sec why an inferior claim to what was stated on the prospectus should be foisted on the public. It behoves the shareholders to combine "and make a test case, and see if individuals can issue glowing prospectuses and; find after the ground has ,been prospected by, th-j unfortunate shareholders that the prospectus id not correct. Each contributing shareholder of the Pride of Tuapeka claim should consult his solicitor and ascertain what steps to take. I have consulted mine, and know what to do. — I am, etc., Shabeholdeb. to the editor. Sir, — I notice! a letter in your columns of the sth re the Pride of Tuapeka Company. There is no doubt in my mind that " Shareholder " struck the right nail on the head. JVhen the claim was being floated we were given to understand many things which have since proved incorrect. Naturally a very glowing account of the claim was given or it would nou-have been floated. I do not blame any persons in particular, because those whom ths cap fits will no doubt feel it sit very nicely;" now that they have a chance of wearing it. I' also noticed another letter in yesterday's Times signed " Roxburgh Shareholder." Would this gentleman tell us if he had anything to do with the floating of the claim, as I strongly, suspect, and have good reason tc suspect that he had, and has still an axe to grind. I rnyse 7 f do not believe the dredge as it stands could get 30oz per week. It might possibly, g2t about half of that — only possibly, — and there is too much to risk for that. Nothing, is said about the top stuff. The clay is there", and will have to be shifted by the dredge before it can reach the wash. Seeing there is, and wis so much uncertainty- about the claim, the/ last call, notice of which reached me this week, should not have been struck. . ■ In conclusion, I may say the opinion expiessed by nearly every shareholder here, if not everyone, is that the company had better be wound up, and the dredge sold. I know the feeling of shareholders here, and it is thai all but one or two would sign a requisition asking for a meeting to be called to cfo same. Th= expression of opinion from shareholders in other places is the same, and if any one would take up the matter of winding up they would be heartily supported, as people now recognise that the first loss is the smaller and better one. I trust this will have the effect of averting the danger into which we, as shareholders, are drifting by letting it go too far.— I amj-etc, Another Roxburgh Shareholder. Roxburgh, September 8.