WARDEN'S COURT.

Thames Star, Volume X, Issue 3162, 7 April 1879, Page 3

WARDEN'S COURT.

THIS DAY

(Before Colonel Fraser, Warden.) SHEPHEBD AND HETHEEINGTON V. M. AND A. BBUCE. The plaint set forth that the plaintiffs and the defendants had been, aud were still, jointly interested in a claim at Tararu known as the Comstock (the lead mine), having become partners for tho purpose of working the claim, and that the defendants had refused and failed to- take any part in the working of the claim ; whereforo the plaintiffs claimed that the Court decree the dissolution of the partnership, the sale of the property, the surplus funds being divided between the plaintiffs and the defendants as tho Court might deem fit and just. Mr Miller appeared for plaintiffs. Mr Brassey for defendants. Edward Shepherd, sworn, deposed—l am one of the plaintiffs, and hold a Miner's Right. Hetherington, the defendants, and I are interested in the Cornstock claim. I have been on the field about a month, aud came from Syd-,-^iey here with Mr Bruce to work a fourth share in this claim until the returns had come out from England. After I arrived on tbe Thames I and the three shareholders held a meeting, at which it was arranged three others should work the claim, I paying them half wages. The returns I refer to are the results of assays of the ore which were sent to England. I paid the others £10 wages in advance. The two Bruces worked for about a fortnight. I made an application for a license in M. Bruce's name, I paying the cost for it and the survey. They refused to work until the license was granted. I am perfectly ■ willing to continue working the claim. By Mr Brassey—The meeting was held before the license was applied for. I have had no agreement with the defendants excepting the first one. The £5 paid by Malcolm Bruce was not on account of the share. In Sydney I had a transfer of my share from Mr Bruce. The agreement was made in Mr Bruce's house. The agreement was not with reference to the Blend Ore claim. There was one meeting. I never refused to work. By Mr Miller —I never agreed to knock off working. There was only one agreement. Malcolm Bruce, sworn, deposed—l hare heard Shepherd's. evidence. His evidence re the first agreement is correct, but it was afterwards varied. I and my brother were to put on one man, and Hetherington and Shepherd another. When the letter appeared in the paper, in which Hetherington claimed to be sole proprietor, I thought I had best wait and see if I had a share.

Edward Hetherington, re-called, deposed—l sent a man up to work, but he did not start when he said the Bruces had not put a man on.

Alex. Bruce, sworn, deposed — The agreement as stated was quite correct. I got into the claim by my brother giving me a share. I did not pay anything for it.

His Worship ordered that the partnership be dissolved, as, the parties were quite antagonistic to each other. The property to be sold, Mr Stoney being appointed receiver; the cost of the case to be deducted from the assets after sale; any of the parties to be at liberty to purchase. Court adjourned.