WARDEN'S COURT.

Thames Star, Volume IIII, Issue 1739, 30 July 1874, Page 2

WARDEN'S COURT.

THIS DAY. (Before W. Teaser, Esq., Warden) THE DEAINAGE CASES.' ' PUMPINO ASSOCIATIOS V. CEWTBAI ITAXT. This case was resumed at eleven o'clock to-day. -. Mr. Macdonald and Mr, Tyler for plaintiffs; Mr. Brassey for defendants. .Alexander Dewar, sworn, deposed—l am a mine manager residing on the Thames. lam general manager for the Tookey Quart /.mining c o# Mr. Brassey objected to the OTidence, as there was no evidence of 6uch a company existing as the Tookey Quartz liining Company. . ,-| j.ii- i

f Mr. Maedonald said lliat it was tlio {intention of tho plaintiffs to prove the ■' legality of the company by other moans than ! hat of Iho deed of incorporation. Mr. I3ras3ey considered that the defondants 'had no standing in the Court unless they proved the legality of the company by producing the deed. His Worship said that the plea of the deed being applicable to foreign statutes was an error; the term foreign only applied to olher than British dependencies. Mr. Tyler asked if it was necessary to prore the deed at all." It would not be necessary to produce the deed of incorporation of a Joint Stock Company. In the case of the Pumping _ Association it was not necessary to obtain a certificate. It was sufficient if the Registrar-General notified that a company had been formed through the Gazette. That had been done in thig case. Tho learn«d gentleman contended that the non-production did not tar counsel from proving the legality of 4|he action of the plaintiffs by, other means, and quoted several cases in support of his argument. Mr. Tyler also read a legal decision which he had received by telegram. Bis Worship said, he could, not tell why, but counsel seemed very tetchy in this case. His Worship wished U know how Icing it took to establish a firm by nameand reputation. ! • Counsel replied that the Tookey Company had been in existence for 5 years. Mr. Macdonald called his Worship's attention to .the case of the Pumping Association v. the City of London. " His Worship stated that that case was undefended, and he was led to suppose that all certificates of incorporation had ]»een put'in. Mr. Brassby said the plaintiffs, in trying to prove the incorporation, had not brought one'tittle of evidence to that effect. They'could not prove that any deed existed, nor that the company had been gazetted. There could have been nothing easier than to have had a copy of the Victorian Gazette sent from Melbourne, and he contended that the Tookey Quartzmining Company had no. standing in that Court. His Worship was of opinion that there were other ways of proving that a company exists, than that of producing certificate. -~ Examination of A. Dewar continued —The company was incorporated in 1869, under the statute in Victoria, The company's office is in Ballarat. I was in Victoria at. that time; soon after the incorporation, I was appointed manager of the present—'Or any other works—carried on in New Zealand. I saw the draft deed before it was registered. I was appointed general manager for the company in New Zealand before I left Victoria.; I brought a copy of the deed of association, (produced in pamphlet form) and three copies of the Government Gazette of the colony of Victoria. Ido not know where they are now ; I have searched for them. I remember to have seen them about twelve months after I arrived; at that time I was secretary to the company. I brought the Viotorian Gazette because I was told I should act as secretary in I New Zealand, but the New Zealand directors would appoint me. I was informed that it was not necessary to bring a c«py of the company's certificate. I came over here in September '69; the deed, produced is dated 70, and is the transfer from D. Tookey. I;>m attesting, witness. The property was in possession since June '69. Mining operations commenced December '69, and have continued till this date. I have paid monies for and on behalf of the Tookey Q.M.Co. I have seen the company* *. scrip. They have been circulated in thii district. I have also let different contracts on behalf of this company. The company have carried on large works on the Thames. ' To Mr. Brassey: I was in Victoria gome time in August '69. I returned in October and left in December. The Gazettes were given me by Mr. Spain. I did not open them when he" gave me them. I cannot swear they, were printed in Victoria. I have no reason to doubt but that they were. I did not attend the office of the Registrar General. • I do not remember the dates of the Gazette. I think it was July or August. I can swear that there was no other Tookey's Company in Victoria at that time, that I know of. I can swear positively that the company was incorporated. I saw a signed copy of the deed of incorporation. I know it was registered by the Gazette notice. -1 cannot swear that any memorandum of association was registered in Melbourne. ■ I caanot tell the date tho company assumed the name of Tookey Q.M.Co., nor the day the Gazette was issued Mr. Brassey said that still he did not think that evidence had been adduced to prove the existence of the Tookey Quartz Mining Company, Registered. . Mr. Tothill's evidence was valueless. Mr. could not' state, nor could any of the .witnesses, that such a company ever existed, and that had the Gazette been brought.it would have been inadmissable. Mr. Macdonald, in reply, said that in ' respect to the. company having been established by reputation he contended that had been fully proved. Scrip had been sold, monies paid and business carried on for five years. The exislance of the Gazette.had been proved, and Mr. Dewar swore that the company was incorporated. He also quoted cases in which it had been decided that a deed oJ registration was not required to be produced. His Worship said that all tho evidence had been taken subject to Mr. Brassey's objection as to the deed of incorporation. Mr. Macdonald spoke further. His-Worship said that if out of the prat he occupied he -should say that thr

contended that the non-production did not bar counsel from proving the legality of 4|he action of the plaintiffs by, other means, and quoted several cases in support of his argument. Mr. Tyler also read a legal decision which he had received by telegram. Bis Worship said, he could, not tell why, but counsel seemed very tetchy in this case. His Worship wished U know how Icing it took to establish a firm by nameand reputation. ! • Counsel replied that the Tookey Company had been in existence for 5 years. Mr. Macdonald called his Worship's attention to .the case of the Pumping Association v. the City of London. " His Worship stated that that case was undefended, and he was led to suppose that all certificates of incorporation had ]»een put'in. Mr. Brassby said the plaintiffs, in trying to prove the incorporation, had not brought one'tittle of evidence to that effect. They'could not prove that any deed existed, nor that the company had been gazetted. There could have been nothing easier than to have had a copy of the Victorian Gazette sent from Melbourne, and he contended that the Tookey Quartzmining Company had no. standing in that Court.

His Worship was of opinion that there were other ways of proving that a company exists, than that of producing certificate. -~ Examination of A. Dewar continued —The company was incorporated in 1869, under the statute in Victoria, The company's office is in Ballarat. I was in Victoria at. that time; soon after the in-: corporation, I was appointed manager of the present—'Or any other works—carried on in New Zealand. I saw the draft deed before it was registered. I was appointed general manager for the company; in New Zealand before I left Victoria.; I brought a copy of the deed of association, (produced in pamphlet form) and three copies of the Government Gazette of the colony of Victoria. Ido not know where they are now ; I have searched for them. I remember to have seen them about twelve months after I arrived; at that time I was secretary to the company. I • brought the Viotorian Gazette because I. was told I should act as secretary in New Zealand, but the New Zealand directors would appoint me. I was informed that it was not necessary to bring a c«py of the company's certificate. I came over here in September '69; the deed, produced is dated '70, and is the transfer from D. Tookey. I;>m attesting, witness. The property was in possession since June '69. Mining operations commenced December '69, and have continued till this date. I have paid monies for and on behalf of the Tookey

Q.M.Co. I have seen the company's * scrip. They have been circulated in this district. I have also let different contracts on behalf of this company. The company have carried on large works on the Thames. ' To Mr. Brassey: I was in Victoria some time in August '69. I returned in October and left in December. The Gazettes were given me by Mr. Spain. I did not open them when he" gave me them. I cannot swear they, were printed in Victoria. I have no reason to doubt but

that they were. I did not attend the office of the Eegistrar General. • I do not remember the dates of the Gazette. I think it was July or August. I can swear that there was no other Tookey's Com-

pany in Victoria at that time, that I know of. I can swear positively that the company was incorporated. I saw a signed copy of the deed of incorporation. I know it wa« registered by the Gazette notice. -1 cannot swear that any memorandum of association was registered in Melbourne. I caanot tell the date tli© company assumed the name of Tookey Q.M.Co., nor the day the Gazette was issued Mr. Brassey said that still he did not think that evidence had been adduced to prove the existence of the Tookey Quartz Mining Company, Registered. Mr. Tothill's evidence was valueless. Mr. could not state, nor could any of the .witnesses, that such a company ever existed, and that had the Gazette been brought.it would have been inadmissable. Mr. Macdonald, in reply, said tbat in ' respect to the company having been established by reputation he contended that had been fully proved. Scrip had; been sold, monies paid and business carried on for five years. The exislance. of the Gazette.had been proved, and Mr. Dewar swore that the company was incorporated. He also quoted cases in which it had been decided that a deed of registration was not required to be produced. His Worship said that all tho evidence had been taken subject to Mr. Brassey's objection as to the deed of incorporation. Mr. Macdonald spoke further. His "Worship said that if out of the prat he occupied he -should say lhat ihn Tookey Company was registered, butfhc evidence did not bear out the fact, although he Lad grave doubts. ,

The Court adjourned. On the Court resuming at a quarter past two — W. C. Wright was examined—witness stated that ho knew both plaintiff and defendant's property. The Pumping Association Pumps lift a great deal of water, brackish but not salt. I know the Central Italy-shaft. The lowest workings are 70ft. below the sill of the Associations shaft. I believe the ground worked in the Central Italy to have been drained by the Association. Plaintiffs were nonsuited, with costs, £15 13s. :. "" PTJMPIKG A3BOCTATIOK V. GOLDEN CALF G.M.CO. In the case of the Pumping Association v. Golden Calf, Mr. Macdonald elected to take a nonsuit, as no doubt evidence would be adduced similar in effect to that adduced in the Central Italy case. Nonsuit allowed. GOLDSMJTH V. THOMAS This case was a complaint brought by the Mining Inspector against the defendant. The plaint set forth that the defendant was the part owner of a mine known as the Queen of Beauty; that the plaintiff did on or about the 27th, serve the defendant with a notice containing instructions for the working of the mine*-- "I hereby request you will within six days cause preventer chain's of ample strength to be provided and fitted to the cages of your shaft, likewise in all cases where weights are suspended by chains not to trust,to a single link." The defendants have failed to carry out such instructions. Mr. Tyler for the plaintiff. Defendant said he had not been served with the necessary notice. The Inspector said the notice had been served by Mr. Bell. Defendant said that he knew there was such a notice in existence.

John McCabe deposed—l am manager of the Queen of Beauty mine. I have a notice (produced) from the Inspector of Mines. I received it this morning. I heard of it about eight days ago from a person of the name of Potts. As soon as I heard about the order I sent to get a chain to match, the one from the rope and could not get one. I put on the best I could get.

His Worship reminded the defendant that in case of non-compliance he was liable to a fine of £10 per day. Defendant said he had told the Mining Inspector he could go down the shaft a dozen times a day if he wished, and if he could suggest anything that would ensure the safety of human life, money would be a secondary consideration. Case dismissed. M'QUINIAN V. HANNIFOBD.

An action for damagesl—was adjourned till Tuesday next.

Printed for ihc Proprietors," Hopohatt McCUIIiOTTGH LCo \.s WILUAM McCUT.iotgii (registered jmblipher of the Etek* IK& Stah) f.nd y.tfbliehcd. by him i et tbo Office, Alherfc- streot, Grahamstown, Thamcß Goldfleld. ■ , "....- .•* THUfisDAir;; Jurir 30; 1874 - '