A CLAIM FAILS.

Hokitika Guardian, 4 September 1929, Page 7

A CLAIM FAILS.

GOLJ> SAVING PROCESS. GREYMOUTH, Sept. 3. An interesting story of a patent process for the recovery of gold, which did not' realise the great expectations concerning its powers, was told to Mr VV. Meidrum, who held the scales of justice at the Warden’s Court, Greymouth, to-day. The scene of the search for gold was the Three Mile Beach at OKanto, South Westland. .The inventor and plaintiff, was Hamey Mathias, jeweller, of Christchurch, represented by Mr F. Doogan, and the defendants were Robert Michael Cox, retired, and Albert Khouri, clerk, both of Christchurch It was stated that Mathias painted such a. glowing picture of his process that he induced defendants to invest £2OO in it, with a view to a test being made, and the ultimate sale of the process, the profits to be divided, one-third going to the inventor and two-thirds to the financiers. Unfortunately, profits did not materialise, and the defendants Alleged that they lost £7OO altogether. Plaintiff claimed £125 10s 6d (wages at 30s per day from June 23th. 1928 to October 2nd. 1928, £144; less £4 10s for board at Okarito, £5 os allowance for food, being seven weeks at 15s per week, and £8 14s 6d cash received). The Warden, giving his decision, said that the parties appeared to have entered into an agreement on July 10th. 19.28, with a- view to testing a certain patent process, which plaintiff led defendants to believe would be likely to turn out a success. Defendants were to put £2OO into it, with a view to having the process tested and developed and to take out the necessary .patents, two-thirds of the profits to be assigned to defendants. Plaintiff, however, was now suing for wages, but he had admitted that no wages agreement was made. He asked the Court to assume that the fact that he went to Okarito justified him in being paid wages at the rate of 30s per day. There was no evidence whatsoever to show that it was ever in the mind sof the parties that he was to be paid any wages at all. Khouri claimed nothing for the time he spent in trying to test the process. Defendants appeared to have paid all the expenses in the testing of the process, and between them had paid £7OO. It would be a most inequitable thing if the plaintiff could come into the Court and compel the defendants to add to their loss by paying him wages for work he did not do. Plaintiff would be non- ; suited, with costs against him.

Costs totalled £l6 7s lOd, comprising two witnesses’ expenses £9 6s ICd, solicitor’s fee £6 ss, and Court 16s.