WARDEN'S COURT.

Mount Ida Chronicle, Volume VI, Issue 351, 26 November 1875, Page 2

WARDEN'S COURT.

NOVEMBER 19,

(Before H. W. Robinson, Esq., and a Jury.) Thomas Grose, Eichard Lawer, and George Thomas, (complainants) v. William Thomas, Andrew White, and John Thomas, (defendants.)— The complaint set forth, Ist. that complainants and defendants, being partners in a certain mining lease area, head races, tail races, tools, and other, mining property, situate at Clarks, were unable to agree as to the proper working and management of the same. 2nd. That the said mining lease area is not now being worked to advantage, owing to defendants refusing to allow any one of the partners to be the managiDgpartner of the partnership claim, the prayer being that the partnership be dissolved, the partnership property sold, and.the proceeds divided; that an account of the debts due by the partnership be taken, and adjusted; that the further working of the claim be suspended ; and such .further and other relief granted as the nature of the case may require. In this case, upon the hearing of an application by Mr. H. C. Hertslet, on the 3rd instant, for a dissolution of the injunction, and Mr. G. F. Eowlatt against such dissolution, the Court decided to remove the injunction. Mr. Eowlatt now appeared to support the complaint, Mr. Hevtslet representing the defendants. Before pleading to the allegations, it was agreed that the complaint should be amended by transferring the name of George Thomas from the side of complainants to that of defendants, and by admitting Eichard Lawer as complainant only, so far as the head races and tail races were concerned, he having failed to show that he was entilled to any interest in the mining lease. For the defence the disagreement was generally admitted by Mr. Herlslett, but it was fair proposals for a settlement batWbeen made by the defendants and refused by the complainants. Mr. Eowlatt insisted that nothing but a verbal offer had been submitted to Ms clients-, •■'...'. and that in a case of such importance involving: a large amount of property any proposal should have been in writing. Upon being asked if his clients were disposed to sell or buy he said that at present they elected to buy, and declined to make any offer to sell. An offer was then made on behalf of defendants to purchase interest of complainant, l-6th and a half at the rate of £675 per share. After the discussion of a few items of accounts ths following judgment by consent was recorded : —That defendant pay to complainants the sum of £IOB9 in full of all demands, to be paid on Monday, the 29th, " at 2 p.m., when necessary transfers &c„ to : be executed and paid jointly, that the costs, £5 45., be divided; that the judgment to be without prejudice to any claim or security which Eichard Lawer and Thomas Grose may have or hold | against George Thomas as regards the said George Thomas share. .. Eichard Lawer v. Thomas Grose, Andrew White, George Thomas, John Thomas, and William. This was a complaint—l. That about the month of February, 1872, defendants appointed complainant book-keeper, time-keeper, and general manager of a certain mining leas© claim belon »ing to defendants, situate at Clarks Diggings. 2. That complainant performed the duties of such office from about Ist September, 1872. to the month of June, 1875. 3. That the profits arising from the said mining lease after payment of all expenses had been during the said , period £2494 ss. 6d. 4. That complainant had applied to defendants for payment of his bonus, but payment of any reasonable amount had been refused—the prayer being that defendants be adjudged to pay to complainant the sum of £124145. 3d., being 5 per cent, upon the profit of the said mining lease claim dui-ing the said period. Mr. Eowlatt for complainant. Mr. Herts! ett for defendants. In the complaint a document was put in appointing the complainant book-keeper, timekeeper, and general manager of the said mining lease claim, but it contained no . provision tbat any pay should be attached to the office other than the amount paid to working shareholders. It appeared that Thomas Grose, a shareholder, had held the same position for some years previously to the complainants doing so,, and had never asked for or been paid anything further than the usual shareholders' wages during that time. He (Grose) had been absent in England during the period for which the present demand was made, and the complainant had represented his share while absent. Upon Grose's return he had resumed his position in the claim, and had superseded the complainant in his office .of manager, book-keeper, &c., and for the first time an agreement was then made by which he (Grose) was to receive 5 per cent of the net profits as well as wages as shareholder. It was admitted by the complainant that though his wages had been regularly paid, and several washings up. had taken place between. 1872 and 1875, he had never made any demand for per contage or extra allowance of any kind; though he at the same . time slated that he always expected something. <7ntho defence it was urged that the present claim was a mere afterupon the new arrangement > with Grose for commission. Several witnesses were examined, all of whom deposed that the subject of commission had never, beon mentioned by complainant un - til after the return of and new arrangement with Grose. Complaint dismissed.