KARANGAHAKE GOLD MINING COMPANY.

Thames Advertiser, Volume IX, Issue 2412, 6 September 1876, Page 3

KARANGAHAKE GOLD MINING COMPANY.

HALF-YEARLY MEETING, ' (The first general meeting of tlio Karanigahako Gold Mining Company was bold yesterday iu the : Mechanics' Institute. Mr Marshall was called to tlio oliair, on the motion of Mr Bennett. The advcrItisemeut having iiboen read, the legal manager, Mr MacDonnell, read the annual report and balance-sheet, also, the reports of tlio mine manager and surveyors. _ | The directors' report gavo a history of ; Lho formation of the company and tlio ! agreement with Messrs Pouter and others to erect a crushing mill of 16 head of ; stampors and' construct a water race, in consideration of receiving a third of the company's interest and subject to'-pur-chase, at a valuation, /flic battery and race were valued at £3,000 by Messrs Dewar and Brown, with Mr. Price as umpire, and the directors took over the plant on the 28th of June. They then .found that the water race was insufficient, i and expended nearly £200 for the purpose j of completing the battery and water race. 1 'fho report alluded to the poor yield (2Bozs from 300 tons), and expressed regret at its poverty, which was attributed to tho presence of some mineral either in tho stone or in tho water whieh prevented the gold from amalgamating. The directors then stopped the battery, and paid off' all hands except the mine manager and two men, until some menus could be devised for saving the gold. _ The balancersheet showed the receipts of the company up to August.3l to be —Capital called, £630 8s 9d; gold, £52 (?s; advance by National Bank, £373 4s 4d—£1,055 19s Id; and the disbursements; £1,054 8s 9d. The assets, exclusive of unpaid capital, consisted of capital called but not paid, £494 lis 3d; and cash, £110s 4d—£496 Is 7d. The liabilities wore £484 15s 4d; balance, £11 6s 3d in favour of the company. The mine manager's and mining surveyor's reports gave details of operations carried on, and both coincided in tho opinion that the surface portion of the mine consisted of a vast slip, as the reef never ran more than 30 feet in one direction, and changed its dip frequently. The Chairman expressed regret that they were not in a position to give a more encouraging report. Had their expectations been realised, they would now be paying dividends instead of stopping all work. They wore led to believe that there was some mineral either in the water or stone which prevented their saving tho gold. They were now getting some experiments made by the Provincial Analyst atid others. They would, however, like to havo an expression of opinion from the shareholders, He bad great pleasure in moving the adoption of the report. Mr Hatch seconded the motion.

Mr Miller asked in what position the battery stood; what title had they to it ? Tho Chairman said that the company had no title, tho title was in Messrs Thorp and Dillon. Tho directors took over possession, and were now in possession. Messrs Thorp and Dillon had agreed to transfer their title to the company, but had not done so yet. Tho company never had a title to the machine sit or water right. Mr Miller said the company was to have the title. The then holders allowed their rights to run out, and the title had been applied for by some persons, who, he understood, were directors. He asked whether it had been applied for on behalf of tho company—whether the two directors who applied for it were applying for it on behalf of the company P Messrs MacDonnoll and Bennett said they had not. Tho Chairman said that the directors had nothing to do with it, and never had a title to it.

Mr Miller asked how they were to havo it when the directors themselves took it from them? He understood now that tho battery belonged to Messrs MacDonnell and Bennett. They were tho owners of the battery, not the company. Mr Oldrey considered it a very lame excuse. He saw that a directors' meeting had boen held, and then two of them went to Ohinemuri and- jumped tho property of the shareholders. He thought their conduct so unreasonable that somo person ought to bo instructed to take proceedings to test tho right of Messrs Bennett and MacDonnell. He moved that until this question was settled tho report be not adopted. j Mr MacDonnell explained that, they had been several days on the claim after the directors'.meeting, and on returning toMackaytown he searched the title. He had previously found them wrong and : put them right at a cost of £18. On the second occasion he found the title had run out since March. He consulted with the ; registrar, who advised him to take it ; up, and ho applied for it in associating; tho name of Mr Bennett with himself. 1 Mr Home advised him to. take it up on behalf of the company, but he refused, as they had no funds belonging to tho company. As for tho remark which had been made that they made use of their knowledge as directors to pump the shareholders, it was simply untrue." Mr Bennett made a similar explanation.

Mr Porter a aid tho. directors were appointed to guard the company's property. They agreed to give away a _ third of the company's property, and it was their business to see that the ; property for which they gave this third was secured. They left the battery and water rights open for jumping, and now the directors (or two of them) came down and said that they had taken it up on their own account. He asked Mr MacDonnell to say whethor they intended to hand it over to the company. ■ Mr MacDonnell declined to say anything on the subject. Mr Miller read tho clause in the agreement relative to handing back this property. On the 28th of June the directors took over the battery at a cost of £3,000, without an iota of title, and thou two of their number took it over themselves. They had no right to do this or to tako tho company's property, Mr Brown said that he had something to do with a similar case, in which, in consequence of gross neglcct on tho part of tho directors or the legal manager, or their law adviser, in regard to the battery 3ito and ono of tho water rights of tho Waitekauri When ho discovered tho misfako ho laid a plaint, not to secure tho property for himself, but for tho company, and ho gave his own cheque for £20 in order to do so. Had he choscn to do so, he could liavo taken them on his own account; but, had he done so, ho would have looked upou it as nothing clso but a fraud on tho company. It would bo a great blow to tho welfare of tho place if respectable gentlemen, occupying tho position of directors, became professional jumpers,

and, as a shareholder in the company, he should take steps to bring them to book. i : Tho Chairman said the contractor's, 'with whom they had : to deal, wero not like Mr Brown. They did not run the battery after it was finished; and, after it had been handed over, the company wero at an expense of £197 8s 2d :to put in order tho work which the contractors should have done. If tho contractors would give the company a cheque for that amount, it was probable that nothing moro would be heard of this affair; and he believed Messrs MacDonnell and Bennett would assign 1 their interests if this was done. '

; Captain Souter asked if it was business jjfor the company to Bpend this money ! (without giving tlio contractors notice. |They had two of the.cleverest men iu the icolony up to inspect the bcttery, and ;they had taken it over on behalf of tlio jcompany. No notice whatever had been jgiven to the contractors regarding' the 'expenditure of this money. ■ Mr MacDonnell said that he. hadhim'self spoken to Mr Souter and another of jtho. contractors, who waa also a directors jon the.subject. , . , v'nr.Tn"" i Mr Brown said that as ono 'of' the (valuers on that occasion (ho was valuator jon behalf of the contractors) he would ;say that the mill ought to/ have been at jleast a week at work before they were j sent there. He had been appointed, on jbelialf of the contractors,' and as it was a matter of £ a d with him, ho did his best !for them. The company appointed, Mr j Dewar, and he came down without instructions. The battery was not finished, land had he' (Mr Brown), been valuer' on jbehalf of the company he wouid : not have jconsented to take it over, fie' thought ; the fault was not so much with the contractors as with the directors, in not giving their valuer proper instructions. | . The Chairman said it was at the.instigaItion of Captain Souter that Mr Dewar ihad been sent down.

| Captain Souter denied this, and said !he had not been in Auckland for ton Idays prior to the time Mr Dewar came ;down; and at that time Mr Darrow had 'not gone up to take over the battery from the working contractors, as it was not finished. j

Mr Miller said that this seemed to him to be begging the question by the directors. According to the deed the property Iwas to belong to the company upon the payment of £3,000 to the contractors, iand it would be so, notwithstanding tho ■ action of two of the directors. He asked ■what property the company had. • ... : The Chairman said they had the mine and nothing more; they never had any title to the battery.' He believed if the contractors-refunded the £197 Messrs MacDonnell and Bennett would assign l over their interest.

Mr MacDonnell said that that was their intention. He thought that no person who knew them would suspect that they would take up those rights for the purpose of extorting money from the contractors or the company,

After some discussion. as to whether the , money should be refunded in cash, or whether it should be deducted from the' valuation, it was agreed, on the motion of Mr Mooro, that the £197 was .to be deducted from the valuation price, £3,000, and that the properties applied for by Messrs MacDonnell and Bennett be handod over to the contractors as security for the payment of the balance of £2,803.

Messrs MacDonnell and Bennett, and Captain Souter, on behalf of the contractors, agreed to this, and Mr Oldrey having withdrawn his amendment, the adoption of tho report and balance-sheet was put to the mooting and agreed to. The Chairman then asked for an expression of opinion as to what steps they should take regarding the mine. Mr Moore suggested that all hands be discharged for the present.

,Mr Brown opposed this, and suggested that it would bo advisable to try test crushings of ten tons from different portions of tho reef at their own battery, which,was, he considered, as good as any in Grahamstown for the purpose, but moved as an amendment that the matter be loft in the hands of the directors,

The amendment was seconded by Mr Porter, and agreed to. Mr Oldrey said before the meeting dosed he had to ask whether there was any minute on the books authorising a single direotor to prevent a shareholder from examining the battery. ? He had been prevented by one of the-directors when he visited the battery in the double capacity of shareholder and newspaper correspondent. On appealing to another respectable, direotor in Okinemuri, he was told he had as much right there .as the director who refused him admission,- i„ i; The Chairman said that he, believed there was nothing in the minuteS) but he considered it would, be better for any shareholder wishing -to inspect the battery to obtain permission from some person—the manager, the legal manager, or tho directors—and this, he understood, Mr Oldrey had riot done. Mr Brown said that it was -the universal custom at the Thames that batteries should bo. "at; all times open to the inspection of, not only shareholders, but the public generally. After some further remarks, the.subject was allowed to drop, and a vote of thanks to the directors and the Chairman terminated the meeting. The directors met subsequently, and resolved to suspend work until the call which has been made came in to enable them to resume operations.