"THE GOLDEN BAR."

Sun (Christchurch), Volume I, Issue 182, 7 September 1914, Page 8

"THE GOLDEN BAR."

ACTION FOR DAMAGES. A DEAL IN MINING SHARES. The hearing of the case in which Robert B. Holdsworth sought to recover £IOOO from' Raymond Hep~ worth, Charles G. Moore, 'and Charles G. Beckett, as damages for alleged misrepresentation in; connection with a purchase of shares in the Golden Bar Mining' Company, Ltd., of which defendants were the promoters, was continued in the Supreme Court this morning. His Honour Mr Justice Dennistpn presided. The case was heard before a special jury, of which Mr C. D. Morris was foreman. _i Sir, John Findlay, K.C., with him Mr A. F. Wright, appeared.for the plamtnr. Mr S. G. Raymond, K.C., with him Mr J. J. Dougall, appeared . for defendant Hepworth, Mr O. T. J. Alpers for. Moore, and Mr George Harper for Beckett.'~■ ;

"i'he hearing of the evidence was concluded on Saturday, when some legal argument was also heard as to whether the misrepresentations said to have been made by any one defendant could be held against any other, defendant. His Honour did not decide the point then. MR RAYMOND'S ADDRESS./ In addressing the jury this morning, JVTr Raymond emphasised that iu such a case as this, in which frail was alleged, the plaintiif roust prove his case up to the very hilt'in order to succeed. Hi! must prove that there ha-J been a conspiracy between the defendants to exploit the public in the sale of these shares, and he must prove conclusively and in all: detail that the'alleged misrepresentations had 'been mado. Oourisel pointed out that much of plaintiff 's case rested on casual conversations held in the early part of 1912. Hp referred to a letter written by plaintiff's solicitors, stating that after careful investigation they i:a<! come to the conclusion tint: fraudulent had. been made.- On August 4, 1913, a writ was issued,'and... in the statement of claim the alleged /misrepresentations were attributed to both Hepworth and Moore together, not individually. Nothing further was done until July 10, 1914, when an amended statement of claim was filed. That was two years and three months after the oecurrances on which the action was based. Not a single one of the charges laid against' Moore in the amended statement of claim was averred in the original claim, and of those now made against Hepworth only one bore any similarity to any one of the allegations when the first bolt was launched in August, 1913. Mr Raymond [contrasted the old charges and the new ones. The former were absolutely preposterous, and he suggested that the j new ones were brought because they were a little more reasonable. It was a most amazing thing that the charges which had been made, after "careful investigation," should have been abandoned and new ones brought nearly a year after the first ones had been issued. Counsel suggested that the plaintiff's case was poisoned at the outset. He did not impute a want of bona fides to Holdsworth, but when plaintiff wanted to establish that the defendants are liars and perjurers, it was necessary for him to attack the defendants and prove his allegations. • The defence did suggest this, that Holdsworth was a bad loser. After losing his money and brooding over his losses he convinced himself that the defendants were rogues. He had, innocently enough, misstated the

effect of conversations —not only with the defendants, but with other people " >ll. —mid of details which had partly arisen since the dealings, and .* of two years! and three months, he said that these statements were made. Who did Holdsworth's desire to buy the shares emanate from? Not from Hep worth or Moore, but from Holdsworth himself. Holdsworth bought the shares after seeing the mine, and knowing that the company's capital was 21,000 paid-up shares. lie was a sane and experienced business man, who knew what he was - going into, and who was but gambling, in scheelite shares during a scheelite boom, but who was a bad loser. The case rested upon the memory of Holdsworth. Counsel proceeded to review the evidence, in .order to show that Holdsworth's allegations were not tenable. In the course of his r.eview,.Mr Raymond emphasised the point that Hepworth only unloaded some of the shares for the development of the mine,' and also- that Holdsworth had been. invited by defendants'' to join the board of directors and so ascertain the fraud ■ that was alleged! There was no ioral corroboration of plaintiff's 'The only corroboration which had been set forward rested on the allegations with regard-to the nature of the company. At that time there was a boom' in scheelite and similar companies. No doubt it was injudicious to float a company with 21,000 fully-paid-up shares, but the jury should remember the circumstances in which it was floated, that it was a private company, and that scheelite was expected to be available. ' A BLAZING EFFRONTERY. Mr Alpers cordially admitted that Moore's position was more assailable than the positions* of Hepworth and Beckett, but he felt sure that he could abundantly demonstrate to the jury that Holdsworth had not proved beyond any shadow of a doubt that Moore waa a swindler. The reason, why he admitted that Moore's position was not, as strong as the other's was that Hepworth had proved that, whatever faults there might have been in the inception or conception of .ihis company, he had not been enriched thereby. Beckett had benefited, but misrepresentation was not alleged against him. . But Moore, who was alleged to have made misrepresentation, admittedly did benefit in a substantial way .by money which people had put into the mine. But the charges against Moore rested on the evidence of Holdsworth alone. Mr Alpers endorsed Mr Raymond's remarks as to plaintiff's evidence: Discussing* "the evidence, • counsel urged that' plaintiff's venture ,was fchat of- a rational business man acting most irrationally. . Why? Because it was not a staid business transaction, but a gamble in scheelite. Holds- ■ worth went in for a flutter. Ritchie put up £500" without looking at the cards, and Holdsworth, who sat next to him, ' straddled ~. the blind.' Mr Alpers considered that for plaintiff, with his two memories, his two statements of claim, to charge defendants with conspiracy and fraud, waa a blazing effrontery. . . Sir John Findlay addressed the court after lunch, and the following issues were placed before the jury::— I.—Were the 1,7,250 shares in Hepworth 's name shares in which Hepworth, Moore, and Beckett were jointly interested? 2. —Were Hepworth and Moore agents for each other to_ procure purchasers of such shares? 3.-—Was the sale of 1000 shares to Holdsworth a sale effected on behalf of ■'Hepwortlv, Moore, and Beckett? 4. —Did t|he ; defendant Moore make the statements alleged to have beejx madeb y him in paragraph ' 9 of the amended statement of claim? s.—lf so, were such- statements untrue, to his knowledge? b\—Was Moore acting as agent for the defendant Hepworth in making such statements? * 7.—Was. plaintiff', induced by such statements to buy shares? B.—Did the defendant Hepworth make statement's alleged to have been made, by him in paragraph* 10 of the amended statement of claim? • 9.—-If so, were such statements hiitrue, to his knowledge? 10.—Was Hepworth acting as agent for the defendant Moore in making such statements? * 11. —Was the plaintiff induced by such statements to buy the shares? 12.—Was the sale of such shares to Holdsworth procured by the joint fraudulent representations of Moore arid Hepworth? ' 13. —What damages,, if any, is the plaintiff entitled to?