TARANAKI IRONSAND.

Taranaki Daily News, Volume LIII, Issue 60, 20 June 1910, Page 2

TARANAKI IRONSAND.

ENGLISH ENQUIRY. At the meeting of the New Plvmoith Harbor Board ou Friday the foilowiii"* 1 letter was read.- ° London, May 5, 1910.—(Dear Sir,-4 am in receipt of your letter dated March 21, and, 'whilst "thanking you for tke same, must confess to a feeling of keen disappointment at the very fragmentary and unsatisfactory nature of "its contents. In my letter to you of Novemhem 25th last [ specifically asked you a series of questions 'hearing uoon "the ironsand problem, and your reply answers nothing t.t all, unless the vague statement that ''your Board is unable to deal with the question" can be taken as an. answer. . My letter making a definite oiler to put down money "for an "option" was in your possession about New Year, but it'was not noticed until nearly three months later; during this time—if my official information was correct--the old ''option" had fallen in, and you had made some fresh arrangements whijh precluded my application from being entertained. Seeing the acknowledged importance of the question, and that we had been spending our .private money; that our process had been proved in every detail, whilst we were prepared to go on at our own risk and expense, I hardly think my .proposition was met in a fair or business-like manner. My application was in your hands for at least one month before you entered into fresh arrangements, and yet .you say "they" (your Board) fully expect to be in a position to deal with the "ironsand leases within twelve months." If your Board were convinced of this fact, they must also have been convinced that the gentlemen who are now in England would be unsuccessful in their efforts to float their scheme. Taking these facts in conjunction it .seems more than •strange that my application should have been shelved for practically three months, whilst others went to America and England with a scheme possessing not the very remotest eleirients* of success, and to the detriment of a legitimate (proposition. Then again I have made every enquiry but cannot get. any explanation of your .statement that'ttie leases will have to be put up for public competition when the time arrives. Did Messrs Grigig. Morris and Co. secure the •option under which they are acting by public competition? If so, may I ask why I was not notified by cable and given a chance of competing on equal terms. When I asked you to treat my previous communication as confidential I was not aware that a member of your Board was also a member of the Grigg Syndicate, or. I should have at once seen the futility of my request. Although you say about twelve months j, your Board in a position of being-dfcleL to deal with these ironsand-lease's, may! I ask you to let me know, upon'refcelptjl of this', some definite date? My fdasvm for asking this is that I intend leaving for New Zealand immediately after knowing when the competition is to take place. Perhaps when it is thoroughly understood that the present holders have failed in their efforts to float an experimental scheme, your Board may be able to deal with trie matter at an earlier date than you suggest. At any rate, I .shall esteem it a favor if you will let me have the information herewith asked for at your earliest convenience, and 1 should also like to know in answer to question I of my previous letter, whe- ( ther you have any of the deposits other j than Taranaki under your jurisdiction, for I presume you have only been thinking of Taranaki beach. My anxiety to secure a short-term "option" over Taranaki was not caused by any wish to hawk the property about as others, have done, but to place us in a position: from which we could safely expend ourj own and the moneys of our immediate | friends. I am'sorry to put you to sol much trouble and may explain that my| anxiety is in part due to the faot that; in t-:-o'absence of some business-like, and j definite settlement we must continue under heavy and regular expense in keep- 1 ing works open, with idle men to be paid. Awaiting the favor of your early replv,' I am, dear .sir, faithfully yours, W. 6. Dauncey, C.E.M.E. ; I Mr. McCluggage .said he had been informed that the"Cadman Syndicate had] arranged its finance and that buildings i would be erected within the time allowed. The chairman said the letter was not correct. It was evident the writer did' ■ not understand the position. ' During an irregular discussion the ! chairman moved that Mr. Dauncey be mi formed l that a- portion, or possibly the-; i whole, of the beach of Taranaki only; ■: will be put up for public competition in March next. :_,.>. This was seconded and carried. Several, members took objection to the tone of the communication.

THE PARAPARA QPTiQNS. . WITHEFORD v.~PUBLIC ; By Telegraph—Press _ Association. Wellington, June lfr i Preliminary proceedings were takeii before the Chief Justice (Sir Robert Stout) yesterday afternoon in chambers in the case of Joseph Witheford v. the Public Trustee and others. The plaintiff (late member of Parliament ior Auckland, and now in England) claimed the sum of £40,500 compensation 101alleged breach of contract on the part of the defendants in connection with the Parapara and other options of the late, Sir Alfred Jerome Cadman. The case in brief, as gathered from a statement of claim covering over forty clauses, was this:-*!! 1004 Sir Alfred Cadman and Daniel Berry, part owners of the options, entered into an agreement with the plaintiff to proceed to the Umted States of America, and afterwards, if necessary, to Great Britain, to endeavor to float the Parapara mining leases, and also the TaranakL ironsand properties into a company- The plaintiff was to receive £sfeo ' for ■ his expenses, and m the event.of securing £SOOO deposit on : 'the flotation of the properties into a company, to receive also the option of share in the vendors' interests. °Tlie agreement was duly ratified and'signed by the defendant Berry, and a'ls'o'by vSir Alfred Cadman. The piain- 1 ti'ff' pYooeeded to America in November, 11904; -and endeavored to sell the options. He then went to England, arriving in London in January, 1905. Sir Alfred Cadman died in March of that year, after' he had appointed the Public Trustee (bis executor. The plaintiff asked that .suitable plans and reports should be duly r niade,.and forwarded to.him in London, in order to assist in negotiations which 1 were' r then proceeding. Various difficulties'arose, and the defendant, Berry, desired to repudiate the agreement. Die plaintiff claimed that the action of the ; defendant prevented him from time to time from bringing the negotiations for ' the sale of properties to a head. I'he I agreement with the plaintiff, it was I submitted, was fully confirmed by Sir , Alfred Cadman before his death. Tn i September, 1907, the defendants in New Zealand entrusted the formation ol a company to one Joseph Smythe, of

Ohristchurch. Tn the meantime the plaintiff commenced an action agamst the defendants, claiming an injunctibn to restrain them from dealing with iiie properties pending the supply of all necessary documents required by him to complete the sale of the properties under the agreement. Arra;igenu":t-; Uml been made with the firm of Louis Spitzel and Co.. in London, to float the properties ii-'n a coin;';'.!'.". The terms were that the plaintiff -iioind receive £12.000 in cash, and £37.000 in fully paid-up shares. The completion of this transaction was prevented by the tailure of the defendants to complete their titles to the prooerties and make available sufficient evidence to put before the buyers. The defendants further made certain alterations in the terms for the sale of the property, n questing a larger share of the proceeds for themselves. Mr. Louis Spitzcl objected to this, and finally cancelled the arrangements. Mr. Myers and Mr. Levi appeared for the plaintiff, Mr. Stratford for the Public Trustee, and Mr. Dalziell for the other defendants, Daniel Berry, Allan Maguire and Hamilton Gilmour.

His Honor, after hearing arguments in technical points, adjourned the case until Tuesday next, in order to enable the plaintiff to amend his statement of claim, and also that he himself might be able to peruse the deed of partnership.