THE Thames Guardian AND MINING RECORD MONDAY, FEBRUARY 19, 1872.

Thames Guardian and Mining Record, Volume I, Issue 113, 19 February 1872, Page 2

THE Thames Guardian AND MINING RECORD MONDAY, FEBRUARY 19, 1872.

Wk have from time to time heard frequent complaints of the manner in which Mining Companies are wound uj>. and the modes of thinking and acting of the Ollicial Agent, Mr Horatio Nelson Warner. Whether these complaints are in all cases well founded we cannot say. but they are certainly very frequent, and from their frequency

ifr. would certainly appear that., very wide spread dissatisfaction We have now before us a communication from a reliable correspondent in refersence to the La Plata Company /iu which great injustice seems to have been done. The La Plata was formed at Tararu in 18(10. and, as our correspondent states, the names of George Russell of Sydney, and John Carfrae were put down as shaicholders without their authority, and that the first intimation they had of-the being in existence, was a notice received by Mr G. Russell three months ago, calling upon him Jo make contribution of £2O. Upon this Mr Russell goes before Mr Garrick, a commissioner of the Supreme Court of New Zealand residing in Sydney, and makes an affidavit to the effect that he was unaware of the La Plata Company’s existence until he received the notice from Mr Warner and that he never gave any authority to put down his name as a shareholder, and repudiating all liability in the matter. The District Judge, Mr Beckham, however, refuses to admit the affidavit, and says —according to our correspondent—that he has no knowledge of any one being appointed either in Sydney or Melbourne to take affidavits for New Zealand, and points out that the only course to be adopted is appoint a special commission to take Mr G. Russell’s cvjdc ice in Sydney. The expense of this would be from £OO to £IOO which of course Mr Russell does not choose to incur, and is consequently cast in principle and costs. Nor is Mr G. Russell the only victim, as we are informed. The name, of Mr John Carfrae was jtlaccd upon the list without his authority, and during his absence in Sydney. On returning to the Thames Mr Carfrae called at the office of the legal manager, Mr Lvell, and requested that gentleman to take his name off the list of shareholders, but was told that it was quite unnecessary, as no debts were due, the manager adding that the Company would fall to the ground, and that it was not intended to go further in the matter: in fact that “ not a pick had been put into the ground,” nor was it contemplated that there should be. Mr Carfrae heard no more of the matter until he also received notice, some three months ago, from the official assignee calling upon him to pay a contribution of £2O. On calling at the office and making inquiries he found that the only creditor was Mr Lycll, who had applied to have the company wound up in order to obtain payment of £27, being the amount of his salary for six months as legal manager. Mr Carfrae also discovered that the legal expenses for winding up amounted to Ll2O. On looking over the list of contributories it appeared that they were thirteen in number, and the ominous word “bad” was written against all the names except those of George Russell and John Carfrae. On examining the books Mr Carfrae found that there had been only one meeting of directors held since the company was formed, and from the minutes of that meeting, at which Mr Mason, Baililf of the R.M. Court, presided, it appeared that it had been resolved that Mr Lycll was not to receive any salary until work was commenced —and as work never did commence, it is clear that Mr Lycll was not entitled to anything, yet he is the mail who gets the Company wound up for payment of his salary, and he is in fact the only creditor. When the case came on before the District Judge, Mr Beckham, Mr Carfrae states that he. never authorised anyone to put down his name oil the list of shareholders, and produces a power of attorney drawn up by Messrs (Stephens, solicitors, Sydney, and other documents, to show that no one had any power to make investments for him, also stating that he called upon the legal manager immediately on his return from Sydney, and repudiated his name being on the list, when Mr Lvell told him that it was unnecessary for him to trouble himself, as there were no debts, and that nothing more would be done. Yet in the face of this, that gentleman claims L 27 as being due for salary, and proceeds to have the Company wound up to pay it. Mr Carfrae was told by the District Judge that he was negligent in not having his name struck oil’, as lie could have applied to the Supreme Court to have had it done. The result is that he, as well as Mr Russell, has to pay the amount of contribution and costs. Now, if the facts, as stated by our correspondent, are correct —and we have no reason to doubt them—there has certainly been a miscarriage of justice in the case. The principle would have been just the same, had the contribution been £5,000, instead of £2O or £3O; but, in that case, it is probable that Mr Russell would have had a special commission to take evidence in Sydney, at a cost of £IOO or thereabouts, or, if he hail not, must have faced the terrors of a writ for his share of the demand. It is clear, from our correspondent’s letter, that the legal advocacy in this case must have been weak, or that the law as regards affi- j davits and statutory declarations taken j by New Zealand Commissioners in the sister Colonies i.s defective, that in i the matter of winding up companies I the equities of the parties are not duly j considered, and that the legal expenses | are, as a rule, out of all proportion. | We have before said thst repeated com- j plaints reach us of the manner in which the Official Agent discharges his duties. We cannot, of course, say how far these complaints arc with or without foundation : but it is, we think, the duty of ! this officer to answer them, if he can. We arc told of his refusing to give information in certain cases—this has been spoken of in open Court by counsel —of his being unnecessarily tardy in payment of dividends, and of his being given to “piling on the agony ” in the matter of expenses. How far he is to blame.'as we have said, we don’t know, nor indeed, of our own knowledge, that he is to blame at all, but when repeated accusations tire

made against a puldic officer, -we-tlunk lie should answer them. Whoever is to blame, thp£“ certainly exhibits some awkward featurcs* That Messrs Carfrae and G. Russell have beeii victimised there is very little doubt. Some one has been kind enough to put down the names of these two gentlemen as shareholders in a company about to be started without taking the trouble to consult them—a not uncommon practice, which wc should like to see-more-honoured in the breach than in the observance, — and they thereby are made responsible for a debt which in equity and. justice they never incurred. The action of the legal manager in this matter certainly -requires explanation. If it he correct that it was agreed he was to have no salary until work commenced, and that work never did commence, nevertheless thathc is allowed to wiml-up the company for the payment of this salary, a very great injustice has been perpetrated. It is very true that many men rush into goldmiiiing speculations blindfold, and come out rather worse off than when when they went in, and in such cases they have only themselves to blame, hut in this particular case of the “ La Plata ” the victims never went into it at all, hut had their names put down by some obliging friend, and yet they are held responsible, and made to pay a large sum, not one penny of which they are morally or equitably liable for, unless the facts have been altogether mis-stated to us, which we do not for one moment suppose. There is just now a depression over this goldfield, and it is very probable that a considerable number of companies will shortly be wound-up. It is to be hoped that amongst them there will he few, if any, repetitions of the “La Plata ” case, which hears upon it the marks of a gross miscarriage of justice, whoever may be the parties upon whose shoulders the blame ought to rest.