WARDENS COURT, AHAURA.

Grey River Argus, Volume XII, Issue 1165, 23 April 1872, Page 2

WARDENS COURT, AHAURA.

Thursday, April 18.. , „ (Before Mx Warden Whitefoord.) C... Goddard, : Faptiste Benotti, Michael Cassidy, Francois Galli, Adolphe Le Jeunne, arid EnSeute^HendrickSon^v. Jean Tabii and Felix JParait. This was a complaint that the defendants, by reason of their obstructive conduct/- prevented the bene6cial working of a claim afc ? HalfOunce, in which all the parties to the suit were co-adventurers, The complainants nray ad the interference _of the Court, that a statement and settlement of accounts might be taken, and that- the co-partner-ship might be wound up and dissolved. The parties were working in one of the deep wet claims on the Half-Ounce lead. The company consisted of eight men, some of whom became possessed of shares in the claim by virtue of purchase at sales under distress warrants, issued from the'Reaident Magistrate's Court. The defendants were . original shareholders, and it was alleged by the complainants that because of their long-standing, they wanted to assume the direction of the company and to dictate the mode of working the ground. This was the-general cause of complaint. A specific charge against one of the defendants was the intentional breach of one of the company's rules, by which a. shareholder who : was absent from work, without giving a satisfactory reason, could be fined LI. The defendant Parait, on one occasion, came to the brace, but refused .to go to work, because another shareholder, Cassidy, was not at work, and he afterwards refused to pay the fine of LI. The defendants also refused to work in a certain part of the claim, which the majority of the party decided should be wrought in, and generally they were pugnacious and obstructive. The plaintiffs offered to buy out the defendants or sell to them, or they offered to put the partnership property up to auction and dissolve the company. All the complainants, with the exception of Le Jeunne, proved these allegations. The defence was a denial of the complainants' allegations, and a counter ' charge of interference on the part of some of the complainants, amounting almost to personal violence. With reference to the specific charge of refusing to work, or pay the fine according to the rules, Faraitsaid that the other defendant and himself,' being the oldest shareholders and living near the shaft, had been appointed timekeepers of the company. The manner of giving notice when to. commence work in the morning was by blowing a horn. On the 18th March the horn was blown as usual, but only five men came to the brace ; the Irish members of the party were, of course, absent, it being St.. Patrick's Day, or the day on which the festival was observed. " It had been previously discussed by the company whether they should work during the race week holidays, and it wa3 decided they should. When the defendants saw that the wfiole of .the party were not at work on the 18th March they refused to go to work, and for no other reason. With respect to refusing to work in the ground which the majority wanted to take out the defendants said that the block in question was necessary to the safety of the claim, and its removal would endanger the lives of the workmen. The defendants alleged, that being longer in the claim than the others/vthey were the best judges of the 7 proper mode of working it. The . defendant (Parait) also charged Cassidy with assaulting, him " after argument" on one occasion 'undtrgronnd. Jose San Salvator, a miner at Half-Ounce, was called for the defence. He corroborated the' defendants' statements about .the proper manner of working* the claim, "but it appeared he was introduced into' the workings without the knowledge of the complainants and made his examination during their absence. Acni Voisin gave similar evidence, and spoke in favor of the defendants as agreeable mates to work with. Le Jeunne, • one of the complainants, was called, and said the only complaint he had against the defendants was their refusal to take out the ground-in dispute. Thiswitnese and the complainant- Goddard said it was

necessary^ for the economical working of the clainiithat this block should come out, and*-besides there was good gold in it, and' the parly wanted to get it. The witness Le Jeunne said further that he did not want to buy or sell in the claim-.- He^wanted'-tMe^worlKteifgOTOn quietly and steadily, but he would .insist ou Parait being compelled to pay the fine of LI for absenting himself on 18th *March/~ MrLouir Mbntagnet,"of^tfpoleon was sworn toract as interpreter. The Warden in giving judgment, said there was no doubt the conduct of the defendants was obstructive towards the rest of the company. It ;■;, was -necessary for the more efficient management of large parties of miners, and for the. profitable, and beneficial working |of claims thaithe majority should rule. If the defendants, >eing in .a,, minority, felt themaelyes* aggrieved by any act or decision of the majority of the shareholders, they could- come to the Court. -for repress. The complainants had' proved , (he general allegation made by them, and the evidence with respect to the specific charges, although not sufficiently, clear to prove them, showed that the defendants had not acted in harmony, ;as mates . should. There was sufficient evidence to show that the defendants had made themselves as disagreeable as possible, and. they brought their troubles on themselves by their misconduct.- ' The defendants would haye to find two competent miners to represent their shares to the satisfaction of < the company. If the defendants did not . comply with this order by Monday, 22nd April;' the Bailiff of this Court would sell their shares, "and after deductingthp/proportionate share of the defendants' joint liability on account of the general expenses of the claim, the balance would oe given them. Mr Charles Goddard for .the complainants ; Mr St-ute for the defendants. . V . '/..-* . William Turner and party' applied for an, extended claim of; two acres, at, Billy O'Drain's .vCireeW, in } the Antonio's Flat district of the Little Grey. The report of Mr Lewis, recommending the grant, •accompanied by plans of the claim, 'were put in and : examinedi— Granted.' M'Mastera and Windover applied for a special site foe tailings, of 100ft, by 50tt, at the same place, and also for permission to take a tail-race across the ground applied for by Turner .and .Co. The tailings site was granted janclfif M 'Masters and Co. found it n^Je|i3aVyS]tO;take a tail-race , over Turner's lease, they had permission to do so, subject to certain conditions and restrictions to prevent injury to Turner's property. . . ... &The Court adjourned to'the 25th April.