I.—4a.

24

partner, had given evidence on oath that he had been led to take up these shares under a misrepresentation ; and I did not know whether you referred to him or not ?—Mr. Gray, to my knowledge, made a defence. Ido not know whether it was in connection with this company or not, but judgment was given against him. It was held by the Stipendiary Magistrate that there had been no misrepresentation. 204. The company has held the claim for about a year?— Yes, over a year. 205. Can you show that you have done any practical work to bring in any return from that mine ?—We have been prospecting. For the greater part of the time I was only connected with the company as a shareholder. The responsibility rests with the late directors. 206. How much have you got in in calls ; and how much is there owing in unpaid calls ?—I think there are only ten or a dozen people who are qualified to vote in the company now, but the majority of them are good for their calls. 207. Do you think it is right to hold this ground and do nothing with it ?—No, I do not. 208. Mr. Herries.] With regard to the proposed amalgamation of the company with another company, to which you referred, I notice in the minute-book there is an addition to the minutes in your handwriting?— Yes ; that was inserted by me as chairman at the following meeting when we were confirming the minutes. 209. The resolution which I refer to is about a circular being sent to the shareholders with regard to the position of the company, and there is an addition to that inserted in your handwriting with regard to the amalgamation ? —As soon as I got on the directorate I moved in the direction of getting an expression of opinion from all the shareholders, irrespective of whether the calls were paid or not, in order to get at the position of the company, and to see if we could not proceed with it. Mr. Brent proposed the resolution, and Mr. Leijon seconded, " That a circular be sent to each shareholder setting out the position of the company, and asking if they are in favour of the directors delaying operations with a view that they may be able to obtain a suitable secondhand dredge within the present capital of the company, or amalgamation with another company." The words " or amalgamation with another company" were inserted on the confirmation of the minutes. 210. Was the circular ever issued ?—Yes; and replied to. 211. The Chairman.] What was the reply to that circular from the shareholders generally ? —T.iey were pretty well divided; I think the majority were in favour of persevering with the company. 212. The company has been formed for more than a year, and you have done no practical work for a return of gold outside a little prospecting ; the only evidence that you have to show that you intend to do anything is your intention to amalgamate ?—We have been in negotiation for some time past with two or three companies who have dredges, with a view to getting a suitable dredge. 213. You are going to purchase a dredge?— Yes. 214. Has the company the funds to purchase one with?—We have a few hundreds in hand at present. 215. How much will it take to purchase a proper dredge?— That depends. 216. Have you got the necessary funds ? —No ; but we have the call capital to go on. 217. If you can get the call capital in, can you do it then?— Yes. 218. But you may go for perhaps another year without doing anything?—We naturally will not go on any longer than we have a right to hold the ground for. 219. Have not the majority of the shareholders asked you to liquidate this company?—l do not think the majority of shareholders have ; there has been a requisition to liquidate . the company, but of these requisitionists there are only two who are good on the books, and who could exercise voting-power. 220. You do not know whether the company hold the claim, or whether it is still in the name of the original grantee ? —No, I cannot say from my own personal knowledge. 221. You say there may be a dispute as to the allotting of vendors' shares, and that the company may own no property at all : do you think, in view of those facts, it is advisable to keep it on ?—I presume that if the company have not got the title to the claim they have a grievance which will give them a good right against the vendors, providing the company fulfil their obligations to the vendors. 222. Mr. Herries.] With regard to the proxies used at the general meeting, were those proxies entitled to a vote —had they all paid up their calls ?—Only those who had paid up their calls were allowed to vote. 223. 27th March is the date of the extraordinary general meeting called in connection with the increase of capital ?—No proxies were used at that meeting ; there was no opposition to the proposal; it was carried by a show of hands.

William Holsted recalled, examined on former oath as to affairs in connection with the No Town No. 2 Company. (No. 5.) 224. Mr. Easton.] Who was the promoter of the No Town No. 2 Company ?—Mr. Cook, I presume ; but I could not speak from personal knowledge. 225. He brought the company into existence ?—Yes. 226. Who was the vendor to the No Town No. 2 Company ?—Mr. Cook was the vendor to the company. 227 Who were the brokers to the company?— Cook and Gray. 228. Was Mr, Cook a director of the company ?—Yes, he was.