MAGISTRATE’S COURT KUMARA

Greymouth Evening Star, Volume XXXI, 11 January 1901, Page 4

MAGISTRATE’S COURT KUMAR A

Wednesday, Jan. 9th.

(Before Messrs Aitkcn, Bonyon, and Campbell J. P.) (Court resumed at 2 p, m). Mr M’llroy I was one of a syndicate formed to purchase Lawson’s Interest in Foley’s Extended and locality. Dr Scott, Byrne, and Tansey were other members. When I heard G Lawson was selling out I advised him not sell. He said ho wanted to get out of debt he wanted to get on a clear footing. On previous occasion he expressed the opinion that dredging would not bo a success on Foley’s creek, because of the heavy nature of the timber. I told him from conversation with engineers I learned that so long as the gold was there the timber could be coped with. He replied that the gold was there but would not pay on account of timber. These conversations took place on morn than one occasion.

I certainly believed that all the tests were genuine otherwise. I would not have been a vendor, a contributing shareholder, or a purchaser in the last syndicate, I was with Lawson Bros., Byrne, and others, a vendor in Foley’s Creek and Brandy Jacks, in addition to Foley’s Extended. Lawson Bros, and myself were entitled to paid up shares in all, in addition to vendors, I disposed of no vendors shares in any of the properties. I disposed of contributing shares in Foley’s Creek Gold Dredging Company when they were at a premium of 8s or 9s. In the other claims I still hold my contributing and vendors shares. On several occasions Lawson Bros asked mo if I had sold my vendors shares in Foleys. I replied I had not. They then told me I was foolish for not selling. I then wanted to know the reason. They said the ground was.too shallow, and there was too much timber on the ground. When the first shafts were sunk on Foley’s Extended we wore all highly delighted at the result, as given by George Lawson. Bring was not present at the time, and W. Lawson was at the Woodstock. G. Lawson said that the Extended was a little better holding than Foley’s Creek claim because there was not so much timber on it. What both Lawsons previously told me was that Foley’s Creek would go about 18grs to the yard. We had a very big holding in Foley’s Extended, and wished to know if the ground was uniformally good thoughout the claim. So after buying Lawsons out wo wished to do more prospecting. It was my intention if the ground proved as good as said to buy more contributing shares with our consent. P. Tansey senr, was engaged to do the prospecting, as a result of his report to us we made the fact that the claim was a duffer, public, and thereupon the whole of our holding became worthless. Operations in the whole three claims are now suspended, the stocks not being marketable. There was no secret made of the tests. / Cross-examined by Mr Guinness: It is a fact that the first prospecting on Foley’s Creek Co were kept secret from the public for a time by Barr Leary and Co. They gave it to me confidentially. The gold obtained from Foley’s Creek claim was brought to me mostly by Richard Williams. I never suggested that Pring should be brought from Greymouth to make one of the prospecting party, W. Lawson did not tell mo he was going to Greymouth for Pring. Never mentioned Pring to the Lawson’s at the time. G. Lawson tried a dish of dirt from the bed of the creek and got a couple of colours on the occasion of our first visit to Foley’s Creek. I don’t remember any meeting at which we were all together with Tansey. What was meant by Lawsons holding free shares, was that they were to be clear of any expense in taking out the prospecting license. Nothing was said about subsequent expense. My opinion is that if our party did any prospecting, Lawsons would be called on to pay their share. I can swear Pring worked on Friday, Saturday, and Monday. I am positive Pring did not work on Thursday. I could not say for how many days was paid for. Cross-examined by Mr Murdoch: I know Thursday was wet because of a conversation I had with Carlsson. He left for Bell Hill before Pring went to Greymouth. I don’t remember seeing W. Lawson on Sept. 18th. Lawsons paid no share of expense of prospecting Foley’s Creek, because a special arrangement was made by which they wore to do the pegging out and cutting the lines. I think Lawson would have had to pay a proportion in cash or labour in any prospecting undertaken between Byrne and myself, I regard to prospecting Foley’s Creek, A subsequent agreement was made that myself and Byrne agreed to pay i Dunedin, f r Lawsons providing labour. There was no agreement with Lawsons as to paying for prospecting in the Extanded. Re-examined by Mr Hannan: When Pring became dissatified about not being placed in charge of prospecting I told Tansey he might give him a p ound or two and let him go home. The gold I got from Williams was shown to Lawsons, Both Lawsons were present with Williams in prospecting Foley’s Creek. One of the Lawsons, I think it was George told me he was suspicious of Williams prospecting, because ho (Williams) got a nuggety piece high up in the dirt from a dish he washed. They then said they would sink a shaft to ascertain whether Williams’s prospecting was reliable. They told me after that they did not get much as they bottomed on a shallow bar. I deny that they told mo it was the deepest shaft and 16 ft deep.

Thomas Vincent Byrne sworn said, I am a solicitor residing at Kumara. This witness corroborated the last witnesses, viz. Tansey and Mcllroy, and added that the principal persons who held out that the claim was a good one were Lawsons, ___ and they insisted on getting a bigger price than was given for Foley’s Greek. When we received Tansey’s (sen.) report on the prospecting, I took my bicycle, it being \ Sunday, and went to Greymouth to see Pring. I told him the claim was a duffer and asked if he knew where the gold came from that was put in. He protested that he did not. On my return on Monday I made the matter public. I gave to my brother-in-law, Mr Barrowman, as a special favour, but I never sold to make any profit. I held vendors and contributing in the Foley’s Creek Co, which I sold from time to time to meet calls in Bell Hill, as I had to got the money somewhere. I also sold some 300 Greenstone Junction in preference to parting with Foley’s Extended. I was friendly with the Lawsons and was doing business for them. Both advised mo from time to time to sell out Of Foley’s Creek. On one occasion Mr G. Lawson asked me had I sold. I said no. This drew from me the question, “ Was the gold really in the claim ? ” Ho said yes, the cold is there alright; ho also said the timber was very heavy, and that he could take mo to more than one place on the claim* where he could find the bott om at not more than two feet. This was in reference to Foley’s Creek claim.

Cross-examined by Mr Guinness: It was about 7 months ago, that they told me about the depth of Foley’s Creek. Never advised me to sell out of Foley’s Extended. In a conversation with W. Lawson opposite Mulvihill’s, about 6 months ago, W. Lawson remarked : Have you got out of Foley’s yet ? I said, no. He replied I don’t know whether you are wise or not in sticking to them. All my scrip except 35 were sold before September, about July or August. I sold out all my Greenstone Junction except 100. The last sale would be about September. I ,went into Foley’s Creek Extended without any prospecting being done, excepting a few colours Lawson washed in the creek in Mcllroy’s and my presence. I saw both the Lawsons wash prospects in Foley’s Creek. In the first dish washed on the lower end of the claim, a few colours were got. At the top end a dish taken from under a stone yielded one nice spec. They were only surface prospects, but good enough to induce us to join with Lawsons to take up the claims. I recollect going’ with Mcllroy and Reeves of Dunedin while Lawsons were away at the races and trying three or four prospects out of the face where Williams got good gold but could not get a colour. We were disappointed. Reeves intended to take an interest in the claim, but after that would not do so. Close on to 6 p.m. the Court adjourned till 9 a.m. (Continued on Third page.)