IRON ORE

Dominion, Volume 3, Issue 846, 18 June 1910, Page 14

IRON ORE

NEGOTIATIONS FOR WORKING PARAPARA DEPOSITS. AGENT CLAIMS £49,500. ■ > 'An important case, including a claim )•" ;lfor £49,500, was mentioned before the r '/Chief Justice (Sir Robert Stout) yesterJ J'day, the parties being: Joseph Howard Witheford, gentle mail, of Auckland, • \ .now visiting Great Britain (plaintiff), 'tlio Public Trustee, at "Wellington, as ■ executor of the Will of the late Sir ;Alfred Jerome Cadman, deceased, iDaniel Berry, ironmonger, of Now V.". {Plymouth, Allan Maguire, contractor, of Wellington, and Hamilton Gilmer, v - . gentleman,' of Wellington (defendants). Messrs. M. Myers and P. Levi ap-, (. .v.' \peared for. plaintiff; Mr. E. Stafford for the Public Trustee; and Mr. F. G. Dakiell for the other defendants. It was alleged in the statement of ■ vlaim that, on or.before November 2, 1904, defendants were joint owners of t certain mining and other properties, ' .frights* and options in Now Zealand, .'consisting.'of: * : - ' (1) A Crown mineral lease of between 900 and 1000, acres at j ; "Parapara, Collingwood; for • -the, ' Vpurposo. of mining for iron ore. (2) A lease from tho. New Ply- / ?mouth Harbour Board of i about 5 • HO miles of iron sand deposits on ! tho Taranaki foreshore, and an. area, ' ''for a machine site. \ ' (3) A-leaso from the Crown of coal-bearing lands', at Waimanga-.. :• roa, West Coast, j;: ' (4) Certain patent rights, in con- " /inection with tho utilising 'of iron ' 'sand ore, and other properties, rights, and options ancilliary to these properties, and properties adjoining. Tho defendants . held tho properties tland rights under a deed of partner- ; . ■ iship, which vested 'the whole manage'ment of-the properties in Sir Alfred (Cadman, and, after his , death, in do- , 'Jendant Berry. In November,. 1904, Sir Alfred Cad- : .man and Berry entered into an agree- ! \ment with Witheford, whereby the -flatter, as agent for tlio owners of the : jproporties, was to proceed to tho United v , [States, and, if necessary, to Great tßritain, ta endeavour to :arranee for , : fthe sale of the properties, this tran- , taction being with tho object of forming. ; ■' an: incorporated limited company, with r, la capital of not less - than £600,000. ; . iThe purchase'money was to be one'isixth of that capital, to be paid, one- . 'fifth in cash and four-fifths in fully ' . ipaid-up shares in the company. I . '/The working capital of thq company • 'was.to be not less than £250,000. i. ,* The owners" of the properties were to . _. .pay to Witheford the, sum of £250 toi ■■' | wards expenses j and this sum was actu!ally paid. Witheford was; to arrange u r-to obtain, from- the purchasers, remuneration, for. his services in tho [matter, and t?Sie balance of his expenses, ty-°; 'land also to obtain the option of purchasing from _Sir Alfred- Cadman an ' eighth share in, the vendors' interests' :. i.-in. the properties: ' • When this agreement was ■' entered * iinto, Berry and Sir Alfred Caduiah represented to Witheford that the.proV ■ perties and titles of the vendors were , then in a suitable state for tho flota-. - ftion of a comiwny-iu America or Great. > Britain, to take; over the properties, • ' I»nd especially.was it represented that they, comprised- , all properties, rights,fand privileges'.necessary for. the proper,. " efficient, and economical mining of iron'; • ore of Parapara, -the manufacture of the ore into merchantable iron at. tho ~ . , 'same place, and : the .delivery 'of tho ;' ..-manufactured product into suitable 1 - vessels at a wharf to be constructed closb at hand in Golden Bay. These representations were alleged -to be ma- • iterial in inducing Witheford to' enter ■into the agreement. Sir Alfred Cadman and Berry further agreed with Witheford that they would employ a ' .competent engineer to report on the . mining and treatment of the ore, that all necessary information would be. supplied to him on his arrival in London, ;' and that ho would . have a sufficient ' - , power, of attorney, to ail attorney or . agent in London, authorising him to execute all necessary documents. Witheford left New Zealand on Nov-.! i: ember 25,'19M, for the-United States -of America, .tho engineer's report not I having been supplied to him, as had been agreed. Sir Alfred Cadman promised to forward the report to him by the following mail.' Witheford endeavoured' to arrange for a sale in tho .United States, but was prevented from : doing so (it was alleged) by the failure of the defendants to forward the re]>ort, and by an attempt, on the part - ,<if Berry, to alter: the terms of the sigreement, ; and,' in particular, by Berry's insistence that tho capita] of ' the company to be floated should not . ojcceel £600,000, which was in conflict with the terms of the agreement. After - remaining some time in the United states, Witheford proceeded to Great Britain, arriving in London on January - ■ 21, 1905. On March 23, 1905, probate of the Trill of Sir Alfred Cadman was granted to the Public Trustee (one of the defendants), who had been appointed executor. •• Arriving in London, Witheford found , .that the owners had failed to forward '. the engineer's report, and that the -other information, material, and docuT ments were not available for his use, '■ ■ and that .no power of attorney had been -sent. He was. prevented.thereby, and also by the repudiation of "the agreement by the defendant Berry, from taking any further steps towards mak- !' ing tho arrangements contemplated by the agreement. , I ' . " On February 8, 1905, Witheford re- : , ccived from R. B. Storey, attorney in London of Sir Alfred Ca'dman, and agent- in Great Britain for all tho defendants, authority to proceed', on a hitter written' to Witheford by Sir Alfred Cadman on November 10, 1904, Riving particulars of the agreement. On -February 16, 1905,. Berry wrote to . .Witheford again repudiating tho agreement, and explicitly stating: "Please ; . note that there is no letter of November If) now in existence." On May 17, .1905, all tho defendants notified Witheford that they concurred in the agrec- " mcnt contained in the letter of = Novembpr 10. -At tho time of tho drawing-up of the agreement the owners of the property • : 'iiad not fully acquired all the rights, • properties, and privileges, as rcpnsented by them to Witheford, which were ■ necessary for tho purpose of the indus- '. try proposed to -. be established. The defendants afterwards found 'it necesto acquire, - .from time to time, additional rights, properties, and privileges, in order to supply these deficiencies. By all .these, alleged , failures and delays on the part "of tho defendants, each of wliic.h was in- brea'eTi" of , tho sigreement, Witheford'claimed that ho iras prevented -from bringing' "tlio I arrangements to. a successful issue, ajid was tho expense of remiaining. in Great Britain for a lengthy period.. In September, 19()G, 't-iw.'defeiidants • entered into an agreement with ono ■ Joseph Sinytho. of "Christclmrch, who represented New Zealand sjudicate, " . to. float a company to tako over the properties.' Horry then cabled to the ■ attorney .in London notifying that'the' •properties had been sold"conditionally, jnd putting, an end to the agreement with Witheford. ,> • ■ In January, J. 907.,. Witheford . com'monced an action. tike.defend-

amts in. tho New Zealand Supremo Court, and the defendants thereupon arranged to givo AYithei'ord further opportunities lo complete arrangements under tho agreement, fixing a tiniclimit, which they extended, from time to tiino. In tho meantime,' AVithefqrd arranged that the action should be kept pending, and that the time for filing a defence should bo extended ..from time to time. AVitheford stated further that, Sot several months he had been in negotiations with a substantial firm in London, Messrs. Louis Spitzel and Co., for tho granting to them of an option to purchase tho properties, on tho tonus of tho agreement, modified with the permission of the 'defendants. By November, lflOU, AVi-thcford had completed all arraaigements for the-taking of ail option, by Messrs. Louis Spitzel and Company, but the completion of tho ar'rangoment, and tho flotation of tho company, wero allegedly .prevented by tho failure of tho defendants to complete their titles to all the properties, a,nd by their failure to forward to the attorney in London sufficient ■'evidence of his authority to onter, into the necessary contract on behalf of the defendants. After lengthy negotiations, .Messrs. Louis Spitzei and Co., by reason of the defendants' conduct, withdrew from the arrangement, and cancelled their guarantee and undertaking. By reason of the'various acts,- defaults, and broaches of contract on the part of the defendants, AYitheford alleged that he was prevented from earning the remuneration for his services, as provided for in the, agreement, and t.horchy suffered loss to the amount of £49,600. He stated also that he spent largo sums of money, a/nd expended a large amount of time, skill, a.nd labour in his endeavours to make the arrangements, by which ho would have earned this - remuneration,' which would have amounted to the sum of £49,500 iiit cash and : fully-paid-up shares. ■ Ho therefore claimed judgment for £49,500 damages for alleged bieach of agreements. ■. ■ ■ ■ A lengthy statement of' defence had been filed in answer to these allegations, made in.'the statement of'claim. In order that counsel'might consider some amendments in the pleadings, hearing was not gone -on with yesterday, but it was arranged that argument in, connection -with .the caso should be taken.at a Banco sitting, to bo held at-10 o'clock on.Tuesday.