MINING

Hokitika Guardian, 25 July 1931, Page 5

MINING

SUIT FOR BENT.

MAHAKIPAWA CASE.

(By Telegraph—Per Press Association) BLENHEIM, July 23. The Supreme Court action by Elizabeth Isabella Stratford, wife of George Rowland Stratford, of Mahakipawa against the Maliakipawa Goldfields, Ltd., was unsuccessful. Plaintiff claimed she had permitted the company to carry 1 out operations on part of her property, and, the. company erected certain works and building on the land. . On December 6th, ,1927, plaintiff notified the company that,, as ifroft? January lstV'i.92B, the would charge them a rental of £IT per week, which sum she increased to £ls per week as . from January 14th, 1928. On the company erecting further buildings, this rent had not been paid, and up to the dale of plaintiff selling the land affected to one Charles Weir, the amount outstanding was £455. Plaintiff claimed this rim as rent, or, as an alternative. aa payment for the use and" occupation ef the land. She admitted that there had been no agreement with the company as to rent, biit'/she understood * from members of the syndicate with whioh she dealt that slie would be fairly treated in regard to the surface land used. Counsel: You received 16,000 fully paid shares from the company h>r your interests/ P—No I understand it was from the syndicate. , . TtYmirLhusband lalsct got lOjOOO' odd shares He 'subsequently gave back 3000 -to help the oompartyu, '‘•YVu have; shares P* l —for some years. My husband considered it' a point, of honpur not to sell the shares until the company was on its feet. . •

‘•How much land is "actually occupied by the land and the buildings?” “They occupy the Whole place, even intruding in my (front garden. Actually they occupy forty or fifty acres with, their buildings. My ploughman was instructed by the mine manager not to put in a crop ..of oats becaiise they might require the land. They treat the’ whole farm a% if it -were their own,’" .. ' w. ..• George Rowland Stratford, husband of the plantiff said thst all Mrs Stratford had parted with was the ~ right to mine under the, surface.#: The company had no surface right. Mr Justice MacGregor, pointed out that there/was no record;jn.'the minutes of any protest by witness ' against," the statements in the prospectus that tlie company had rights over the, whole of Mrs Stratford’s land.

Witness said he protested vigorous,9o3noitn , , ~7T n ” Tv on many occasions. Nevertheless he said he always understood that the company had mining rights over 100 1 acres and had to acquire any’ further right** ...

His Hoiiour: But - the public weremisled on these statements. They are either true or it was a fraud on the public. 1 .i, ' V ... •■■■' Witness: They ;were a fraud on .the public, but I had no part in them.. His Honour: Did you protest?— Yes. ' ■

Did you publish anything in the newspapers?—No. Yet you were chairman of ' directors?—Yes for a while, but I was hot an active director after 1925. Re-examined, the witness said he regarded the shares allotted to his wife and himself as payment- for mineral rights over the original 100 acres. Mr Scantlebury put in the Company’s minutes of March-21st, ”1929,in which it was stated that it- was resolved that the company pay nl! Weir’s expenses in the action yyith Stratford and allot him 60QPy,fullypaid shares for his mining rights' in the land acquired for the Stratfords. A minute dated July 25, 1928/accepted ’Mr Weir’s offer to sell’them tlje land lie had purchased from the Stratfords at the price he had paid for it. His Honour inquired ivhat this had to do with'the matter. . ---i .

Mr Scantlebury If the company', already had full rights, ns they claim, why the necessity for purchasing the land? That is the point. s&y'\ No evidence was called for the defence. After hearing counsel, His Honour after fully reviewing •. the facts,. said he was quite satisfied from the eyid ence that the claim had no ; legal ibasis in that both plaintiff and- her husband gave first the syndicate, and tlieh ' .;th<, company, the rights it - was exercising in return for the shares allotted them and they could have no further claim.