WAKATIP HOSPITAL.

Lake Wakatip Mail, Volume II, Issue 64, 9 December 1863, Page 4

WAKATIP HOSPITAL.

A General Committee Meeting was held upon the 3rd inst. The attending members were Messrs. Rees (President), Healey, Mirfin, Beefham, M'Gaw, Brown, Bracken, Dr. Croft (Hon. Sec.) The minutes of the last two meetings were read and confirmed. The correspondence was read and ordered to be received. It included a reply from the Provincial Treasurer, stating that the grant-in-aid, £'2ooo, had be n forwarded to Mr. Beetham, the resident magistrate, who had received instructions to hand the same over upon being supplied with the statistics relating to the receipts and expenditure of the Institution duly attested, together with other returns as to its management. The President drew the attention of the Board to the accounts for wines and spirits, and the heavy expenditure generally. The Secretary's report was read. Ordered, that Mr. Webster's account be returned to him, with instructions to render another account in terms of contract.

The Secretary's report was considered. Proposed by Mr. Beetham, and seconded by Mr. Bracken—"That Mr. Kirk, house steward, be dismissed." Carried, upon the understanding that Mr. Kirk be first examined, and if his statements prove unsatisfactory. Mr. Kirk was then called in and asked if he had complied with a resolution of that Committee to pay in money received from patients once a fortnight. Mr. Kirk replied he had not, but that the money was all right. Mr. Brown remarked that the money received from patients did not amount to £2 per week. After some discussion, it was resolved that a Sub-Committee consisting, of Messrs. Bracken and Mirfin, visit the patients in the ward and ascertain what they had been paying. On the return of the Sub-Committee, they reported that they could not make Mr. Kirk's accounts correct, as apparently more money had been received than was accounted for. Mr. Kirk was again called in, and requested to furnish the amount collected from D. Burton according to the book kept by him (Kirk). The House Steward finally acknowledged that a defalcation of £2 existed in Mr. Burton's account The President (Mr. Rees) then dismissed Mr. Kirk from the post of house steward. Proposed by Mr. Bracken, seconded by Mr. M'Gaw—"That J. Kirk, late house steward, be prosecuted for embezzlement." The motion was lost by one vote upon a division.

Resolved —"That Mr. M'lntosh be called in, and placed in charge as house steward pro tem Mr. M'lntosh upon being called in was asked if he would undertake the office pro tem, and consented to do so. He was instructed to act under the guidance of Mr. Manders, who was to have full powers to act in all matters for a fortnight. Proposed by Mr- Bracken, and seconded by Mr. M'Gaw— 44 That Mr. Manders report upon the house affairs cf the Institution, suggest a more efficient organisation of the same, and that he be paid for those duties." Carried. Proposed by Mr. M'Gaw, and seconded by

Mr. Brown—" That duplicate invoices accompany all gjjds delivered." Curried. It was alsj resolved—" That Messrs. Croft, Beetliiui, llealey. Bracken, Brown and M'Gavr be a Sub Caminitt.-e lor the purpose of drawing up a report to answer the enquiries of the Government." Carried. Mr. Kirk here paid in £l3 Us. the cash received from patients. Proposed by Mr. Mirfin, and seconded by Mr. Bracken— 4 That the meeting adjourn to Queenstown, to Tuesday, at the Commercial Hall, Queen's Arms Hotel.

QUEEXSTOWN CRICKET CLUB.

A committee meeting was held at brookes' W.ikatip H'»tel on Monday evening. Present Messrs Weaver, V.P. (chair) Chambers, Harris, Whyte, Lewis and Welsh. The previous minutes were read and confirmed. The following resolutions were carried : Proposed by Mr Chambers, anil seconded by Mr Harris —"That the challenge irorn the Arrow Club be accepted." Proposed by Mr Chambers, and seconded by Mr Weaver—"That Mr Louttit be a member of committee in the place of Mr Horton resigned." Proposed by Mr Whyte, and seconded by Mr Weaver—" That the cricketing material kindly lent by the Arrow Club, be returned with thanks."

A letter from Mr C. B. Kingman (Cobb and Co's agent, Invercargill) having been read, stating that he had forwarded the cricketing material sent by George Marshall, free of charge— It was proposed by Mr Whyte, and seconded by Mr Harris—"That the hon. sec. write a letter of thanks to him, and enclose a card of membership." Proposed by Mr Harris, and seconded by Mr Louttit—"That tho former match committee, with the addition of Mr Louttit, select the players for the ensuing match." Proposed by Mr Whyte, and seconded by Mr Weaver —" That Mr Harris sell the right to erect a pavilion, on Tuesday at 12 o'clock. Proposed by Mr Chambers, and seconded by Mr Harris—"That Messrs. Lewis, Weaver, and Louttit, be appointed to superintend the arrangements for the forthcoming dinner. Mr Hincy was then elected a member of the Club, and the meeting adjourned with a yote of thanks to the chair.

WARDEN'S COURT. Monday, December 7. Before Richmond Bertram, Esq., Warden, and As>es«ora. Lorimer v. M'Callum and Pahty.—Claim for £SO, price of a share in defendant's claim. Mr Shepherd for plaintiff. Mr Shepherd, in opening the case, Raid thnt (he plaintiff had been induced to purchase a share in defendant's claim at Arthur's Point, the said defendants being then in dispute with another party, Doyle and Co., as to the right of holding the ground, which case was decided in favor of Doyle—thus leaving plaintiff with little or no ground; tho consequence was thut plaintiff sought to recover the sum paid for the share, on the ground that he was misled as to the facts of the case. He should call a witness named Daly, who would prove that a similar fraud had been practised upon him. Charles Lorimer, sworn, said that he had been introduced to defendants by a miner named Wright; M'Callum said that their claim was a rich one, and tho party (six) had determined to raise their numb.r to eight; there were two shares for sale, for £BO each, but plaintiff afterwards arranged with him for £SO; M'Callum said they were sure of getting the ground, though they did not know as to the exact time; the ground, they said, was on an old race; and if Doyle attempted to work the ground, they would jump his river claim ; they said they were sure of getting the ground, as, should they loso the case, they would only have to register the claim, and work the ground some time after; there was a MnHll strip of ground left after the decision, and M'Callum and party invited him to assist thfT. to work it, nut he refused; tentwelfths of the ground had been taken from them.

Tf\os. Daly was then examined; but his evidence was disallowed, as it only referred to the purchase of his own share. The defendant, sworn, deposed that he had a conversation with Lorimer, with reference to the sale of a share, who agreed to pay £SO cash for it; hid nothing from him with reference to the state of tho case; plaintiff made several offers of part down, and part after the case then pending had been decided, but this was refused: told him the shares would bo worth £IOO if the case was decided in defendant's favor; at hist Lorimer said u Nothing vonture, nothing win," aud drew out a chenuc ; ho seemed quite saiisiied. Wm. Writrht, sworn, stated that he introduced Lorimer to M'Callum, plaintiff having asked him to look out for a share in a darn for him ; defendant wanted £SO, but plaintiff offered £2O down, and the balauce of £6O after the case was decided,saying that £2O would be quite enough to lone, if theoojM* did go against them; Lorimer had seen the claim, ana witness told him all he knew ; is a shareholder in Walker and party's claim, close ta M'Callum's; told Lorimer ho Wild not pay mcto than £2O down, as it won in

dispute { observed nothing on M'Callum's part indicating a desire to press the sale; he seemed not to want to sell the share at all; Lorimer suid *' Nothing venture, nothing win," and seemed to take the case as a risk-, and to chanco it.

By Mr Shepherd—l did not tcil Lorimer tho claim was on another miu\» ground—l did not know it myself j n»y iuterest is much tho same as M'Callum's.

Mr M'Cullum, for the defence, said that ho did nothing in any way lo induce plaintiff to buy tho shure, and gave hini every information in his power. Was under the impression that their claim was upon an old race, not upon a protected claim—that they had only to wait till they got the permission of the Court. To the assessors—We worked in tho ground about a fortnight or three weeks. We had just bottomed the first paddock when we received the injunction. Mr Shepherd sai<i the evidence the defendants had adduced had proved his case : they thought that they hnd a title to the ground, being under the impression that it was not protected as a eluiin, hut only as a race, and had thus misled plaintiff, who could not be supposed to have paid £SO for an eighth share in a claim contingent upon the successful issuo of a lawsuit. His Worship, in summing up, said what the assessors would havetoconsiderwas—whether Lorimer bought the share with his eyes open, knowing what he bought, or whether there were falso representations made, thereby inducing him to purchase the shore. They must also consider the testimony of Wright, who was a disinterested witness, and upon that point ho wished to explain a remurk'of his: Wright had said that his interest was much the same as the defendant's—which was so fur true, inasmuch as ho held a share in a claim lower down tho river, and the judgment in the case of Doyle affected him in nearly the same proportion as it did M'Cullum ; but his remark did not mean the case in dispute. He believed that Lorimer did not know the exact circumstances of the caso between Doyle and M'Cullum, but the defendants were in the sameposition. A good deal of stress had been laid on the fact that \l'Galium and party did not know that the ground they had tuken up was a protected claim, but his Worship considered it a very strong noint in their favor. The jury would have to decide whether they had made false representations, or whether Lorimer had bought the share as a mere speculation. The jury, after a short consultation, returned a verdict for the defendants, the plaintiff having, in their opinion, bought in as a speculation, and having been in possession of the full particulars as to its being a dispute d claim. (lteforo K. Beet ham, Ksq., Warden.) Hayes and party v. Hunter and party—This was a case of extremo fogginess, so far as thn plaintiffs' evidence went, and great difficulty was experienced in learning the true state of the case. It appeared that plaintiffs had taken up six men s ground at (Sutherland's Beach, part of which was on a protected claim« this pari was sold by Hunter and party, and it was upon this that the plaintiffs had taken action. His Worship gave a verdict for the defendants.