CORRESPONDENCE.

Mount Ida Chronicle, Volume IV, Issue 250, 19 December 1873, Page 3

CORRESPONDENCE.

We do not hold ourselves in any way responsible for the opinions and sentiments expressed by correspondents. An. communications must be accompanied by the correct name and address of the writer, I not necessarily for. publication, but as a guarantee of good faith. ('To Hie Editor of the Moms? Ida Chbonici/e.) : Sin,—A. certain party of miners here are owners of th pilose. Thistle, and Shamrock Channel* For wake of brevity I will call them 1, 2, 3,'4, and 5 (there are more, hut this will do for illustration). The four first bavins their names on certificate declined to recognise No. 5 as a shareholder, because his name, was .omitted from said certificate, although he paid calls and received dividends; in common with them, and' helped to keep the channel in repair during the last four years; during which the other shareholders never disputed his right. There is a code of rules in connection with the working of the channel, one of which rules state—"That all shareholders shall pay a proportionate share in labor and cash towards keeping the aforesaid channel in repair." But mark the high sense of equity displayed by the other shareholders in their late treatment of No. 5, because he omitted the legal formality of getting his name on the certificate of. right. The other shareholders are occupied in cutting a head race for the purpose of working ground into said channel, and .No. 5 was employed working his claim into said channel in September last, when a portion of retaining wall gave way, causing some damage to another channel, known as the High Level. The owners of the latter noticed No. sto repair the damage. He at once called a meeting- of shareholders of the Rose, Thistle, and Shamrock Channel, asking them to assist him in making good the damage to the other channel; but they declined to do so.. No. 5 declined to do it of himself unless his mates in the channel would pass a rule bindings-each individual party "to make good any similar or other- injury "caused by them while working ground into it. They, declined to-pass.any such rule, with a.view, no doubt,:,to. compel No. 5. to. aid. them in such a strait, although he might not" be discharging a particle.of tailings into it at the time. The end of the matter was that No. 5 was summoned by the High Level party to repair the injury done, by the water flowing from the Rose, and : Shamrock Channel. Judgment was given against him for the damage, and costs. No. 5 then sued his mates in the Rose, Thistle, and Shamrock Channel to pay a proportionate : share of Iris loss ; and,. honest men that they are, they defended the ease, and got him non-suited on the grounds that was not a shareholder, their proof being, that his name ; did. not appear on the : certificate. 'The/law— : : crooked thing thai; it is—not recognising him to be a shareholder, he sued the others'for the work done by him in the channel previously. The same party of men who, but a few days before denied his., .right to be a shareholder, again defended this second claim of No. 5, and again sot him nonsuited. And on what grounds, do you think? Why, they proved hini to be a shareholder, for the last four'years ! Look at both cases of; nonsuit, and look at the upright consistency of the men who caused them. To confirm their consistent conduct, : they have since done for another party/ say No. 6, what they refused to do for '■ No. 5, 'although the name of No. 6 is hot •'; on the certificate, and they might refuse ; the one as well as'the other. But these consistent men think that No. 6 may have : the means to force their compliance, which ' No. 5 may laHr. Let disinterestad mi- ! aers say what they think of it.—l am, &c, ] Mikee. '

St. Bathans, Dec. 15

(To the Editor of the Mount Ida Chronicle. Mount Ida, December, 1873. Sm, —Allow me, through the medium of your highly appreciated journal, tocomplain.of the manner in ■which I have treated by the Clerk of our Magistrate's Court under the following circumstances : Having'occasion to apply for a summons for arrears of rent due to me for certain premises belonging to me in this township, I was distinctly refused such summons by the gentleman holding the situation of Clerk to the said Court unless I employed a solicitor. Now, Mr. Editor, I wish to know whether the Clerk of the Court has not exceeded his duty by such refusal.—l am, &c, John Fahmeb. [Having made enquiry into the statement made by our correspondent we understand that the. party liable for the rent in question being now resident beyond this district, before a summons could issue it was necessary, under the provisionsof the Resident Magistrate's Act, that, in the first instance, an affidavit should be made, that cause-of'action arose wholly, or in some material point, within the jurisdiction, .of the !Cour,t. Mr. . Parmer, not being able to understand this, was' advised to obtain assistance from some one who could act for him.— Ed. M.I.C.] j

Value op Property in Auckland. —By a private telegram from Auckland the other day, we ljearn that a part of the fire block in Lower.Queen-street was sold by, auction, and realised'!! 100 a foot. The allotments sold, mre those on which the warehouses of Messrs. Henderson and Macfarlane and M 2ssrs. J. S. Macfarlan,e and Co. stood . The original purchase money paid to the Government for these allotments was, Guardian.'