WARDEN'S COURT REEFTON.

Grey River Argus, Volume XII, Issue 1209, 13 June 1872, Page 2

WARDEN'S COURT REEFTON.

Friday, . June 8. (Before Mr Warden Broad, and'the'foP lowing .: Assessors , > M; Byrne, John Still, R.: Ch?ng,and B. Doherty.) ■''.■■■: -.-. !'■ ASHTOK'Vv CAIKD. r ''< --- ,?i V; This action was partly heard before the 1 Warden, at B<eefton in the taonth of April last, on which bccaaion- the eyidencti'bf George Sadler' was -takeiii A n d Me iearing. adjourned till the27thpf the iaain^honth for,, the production, of G>;W^ Mobs ; but, through the unavoidable absence- fit - the plaintiff' and Mr Moss, the ciie^was dismissed, satisfactory affidavits being j filed accounting for. their non-attendance. . A re-hearing was granted'f; the condition being imposed th^t|fii^ evidence of Sadler; as previousiy.given, Bhpuld be r§ad arid- received. '•■ Mr Giiihnega appSare\i'f4ir the complainant, and .Mr A. Pevpre fir the defendant. ' ci •- • The complainant, alleged -that on or abouV th? 22ncl day of Septemb'er } "tsf 2, the defendant^ by : his, . dul^ authorised agent George Sadler j entered into a verbal agreement with the complainant to "etell and. transfer to him, a full shareyin a. quartz claim known as' No. 2sbuth, Adam Smith's line of reef, Inangahua, and that the defendant had refused ta'^n : sfer;^e'v«aiS sharei'to complainant ;}_ and the complainant claimed-that the defendant be ordered to transfer the .said share- or pay LSOO damages. ... ? :wvi .-•;:/" ; ; Mr Guinness; having stated the case, the following evidence was taken :— -:u;\' George Sadler stated 'that he knew the defendant, Alexander Caird. -He informed me that he was the holder of a full shard in No 2 south Adam- Smith's; conversation occurred in ' September last at Murray Oreek. .jpefendant; asked me if I could sell the share for \L2s. He said it was in Moss's, hands through r Nelson. I went with him to Nelson's stored and he instructed Nelson tp write to^Moas and withdraw, the sh^re from his Sands," asfit was placed in mine. I Wok a letter down and delivered it to Mr Moss. He opened it, and it was to the same purport as the conversation^ I then, told biniri/ had;a buyer. ' I sold t6 Edwin .Ashtpa iorjss, and LI deposit. wag., paid, i iniormea Nelson what I had done when I returned. When I cania back to Reefton the first time I told Caiird it waa as goiS^K^hßolct, .but the parties intended coming ,up ( iind working for themselves. He replied, • ."the sooner the better, as! he wanted money very badly."" I returned to Orey^ mouth and completed the sale toAshtott; I stopped at l^elson's store when I came up, and hetoldjne;that.l need not trouble myseltany more, as jie had taken the share himself. Vl I then to^d him I had already sold it. I did hot see Caird Iqr 14 ( days ; : afterwards,: although . 1; tnad to .him. I then met him Jon the. prospectors'.claim, I told him I had sold the share, a^daskedfpr/atransfer,amthejtefused it." The.,share i is,wortn at the present time LpCKXto 'IAOO. ' I sell a great many. shares. - , • Cross- exainined4-I did notaskyoJTln Anderson's store whether he hacl a share for sale. 1 He asked me if I broughfup a letter from Moss relating to that share. I said no, but if you could have given it to me to.sell I could dispose of it*; Yo\f*iustructed Nelson to write to Moss to withdraw it from him and give- it to' -me. The price was to be L25. -r-lTdid not-aay when I oarae up thatj the share was as good as sold.. '" ■ -■ C.R. Nelson— l am a storekeeper at Murray Creek. I. was; insfriicted by: ike defendant to place a share in Moss's hands for. sale. I sent the authoriiy to Moss and that authority .was .signed by me. I had no written authority from Caird to Moss to sell. : The share Was ' firetpui in my hands on August 14th, and I suggested that Moss should try arid' do wmit'he could with the share. Caird aftfted.SCaiwl did not authorise me to give the share .into Sadler's haridsy but to >wrthararojit from Moss ; since then, Caird and Sadler had arranged for the sale. I saw Sadler again on the 6th or 7& September. He told me on one of these evenings that he had spld. the share, ■ a .•,-,%;:; ■[ Cress-examined— l never heard any distinct authority from £aird^o -Sadlerrto sell the . share in qiieslbion, ,but I understood f from J Caird that he' xranWd. Sadler to sell the share. Sadler said he hal'sojd bn^or about the 6th September.' 'I gave)a written authority to.Moss, at Caird's desire. I purchased fro'toi Caird for Lls, on the llth September. r( T^ wasthe.Talae of the share whenlpu)rohased. " G. W. Moss: X'alin a sharebroker, Greymputh. I ; received instruction! in writing from C. R. Nelson to sell* full share in-Nos. 2 south Adam Sraifch'a^line of reef for L 25. ; Thisjwas about the 14th August last. I could not cell the Bhare. I afterwards receiveda letter from Nelson (through Sadler), on or about the beginning of September; withdrawing the share from my hands, and. authorising me io transfer the sale of the share to Sadler* I declined haying ; anything further to -do with it after handing iMo SadlerV: J#« - informed and know that Sadler subee gently sold the share to Mr Aihton for

L 25. I produce the letters I received from Kelson. (Letters read.) I believe the share is now worth between L4OO and L6OO. Thomas Cooper sworn : I formerly acted as Clerk to Warden at Reef ton. ] so acted since October last. A summons was heard between Sadler and Caird on the 27th October last. There was no appearance of the plaintiff. Defendani attended, .and the case was struck out. ] have searched but cannot find the complaint. Sadler arrived the following day. Another complaint was then laid, and the summons produced was issued. It was for hearing on December Ist, but was not heard till the 6th or 7th of that month. The plaintiff in that case was nonsuited. There was a sale from Grant to Caird on September 6th for L 27, and another sale from Caird to Nelson on September 11th for the sum of Lls, also one from Caird to Dunne on December 12th of a quarter share for Lsb, and on February 15th a half share for Ll2O. I received a notice from George Sadler in December objecting to thb transfer of any interest of Caird. Sadler did not mention the name of any person for whom he acted. I saw Caird and Dunn upon the matter. Edward Ashton : I am complainant in this action, and an hotelkeeper residing at Greymouth. I agreed to purchase a share from George Sadler for L 25, and paid him LI deposit to fix the bargain. He undertook to see the defendant and get him to Bign the transfer of the share and to effect the registration. The Warden : Have you a miner's right ? Witness ; Tea, I produce one dated the 3rd December. The Warden : Had you any miner's right when you bought the share from Sadler? Witness- I don't know ; I believe I had not. The Warden : Then you muse be nonsuited, as you were not the holder of a miner's right when ypur alleged cause of action accrued. Section 115 of the Gold Fields Act of 1866 renders it imperative that you should have been the holder of a miner's right. Mr Guinness submitted that before his Worship nonsuited the complainant, he (Mr G.), would ask leave to point out that the present was not such an action as rendered it absolutely necessary that he should have been the holder of a miner's right. The section referred to did not, in his opinion, apply to the case then before the ' Court, because, according to that section, the several causes of action therein referred to were distinctly specified, and if the Court would carefully look through the section, it would see that the present suit did not come under that section or any one of the causes of action therein mentioned. It should be borne in mind that the suit was not to recover possession of any claim or ground which the complainant had at any time previously occupied, and' it could not be urged that it had been brought to recover damages for any encroachment upon any claim or ground which the complainant then ; held/ as there was nothing in the complaint alleging that he had ever been in possession of any claim or ground within a gold field, but, on the contrary, it declared and prayed that the contract entered into between the complainant and Sadler, the authorised agent of the defendant, should be carried out, and that could only be done by his transferring the ahare,or paying the equivalent. Nothing had been signed : and no such transfer made to complainant as would entitle him to go to the Warden's office and get his name inserted in the certificate of transfer. The deposit evidenced the Hoiiajtdea of the transaction, and until the actual transfer was signed, the complainant had virtually no title whatever. Again, if the Court held that in the present action it was necessary the complainant should have been the holder of a miner's right at the time when the mere bargain was entered into and the deposit paid, it would have a very pernicious effect upon dealing with shares in places at a distance. In, ninety-nine cases out of a hundred it would be impossible for purchasers, .when they entered into an agreement and Jiaid adeposit (the transfer not being effected)— not being signed by the vendor— to take out a miners right. It could not be contended that it was the intention of the Legislature, that at the time any person wished to buy shares he should be compelled, before opening his mouth, or making any attempt to effect a bargain, to hold a miners right for the gold field in which the claim was situate. If the complainant were nonsuited it would establish a dangerous precedent, and he requested the Court to pause before recording such a decision. Mr Devore thought that the complainant must be nonsuited, as the action was brought to recover the share or pay LSOO damages, and it had repeatedly been held that no person could maintain any action in a Warden's Court, unless such person, at the time the cause of action a corned, was the holder of a miner's right, and that no person had a loem standi upon a gold field unless he was the holder of a miner's right. In the present suit complainant claimed the share, but he could not take legal possession thereof, as at the time the sale was effected he was not the holder of a miner's right. His Worship, In giving jridgment, said it had been decided that unless the complainant was the holder of a miner's right when the cause of action accrued, he must be nonsuited. He did not frame the statute, and would base his decision upon the case "Maokeprang v. Watson — MTTarlane's Digeßt Mining Law, Victoria, page 165" :— " M held a share in a mining company, in July, 1857; he was excluded by his co-partners from the claim in 1862; for being in arrear with his calls, he having no miner's right at the time. In 1864, he took out a miner's right, and instituted a suit against his former co-partners (who had in the meantime formed a registered company and were working the ground as such) that he might ba declared entitled to his share of the ground, and for an account, dissolution, and sale of the property. Held, that as he had no miners right at the time the cause of action arose, he could not, under the Act, No. 32, sec. 90, maintain his suit ; and therefore he (the Warden) had no alternative but to direct the Assessors to record a nonsuit ; which was accordingly done!