WARDEN'S COURT.

Thames Star, Volume VII, Issue 1937, 19 March 1875, Page 3

WARDEN'S COURT.

Thubsday, 18th Mabch. (Before W. Fbaser, Esq., Warden.) JOHN SHABPE V M'QUILLAN AND OTHEBS. This was a claim for forfeiture of the Trafalgar claim, situated on theKaraka, for non-compliance with the Goldfield Regulations-as to working. The case was struck out. SCHOFJELD AKD OTHEKS V. OBAHAM. Mr. Tyler appeared for plaintiffs ; for the defendant, Mr. Macdonald. The plaint in this case was that Richard Edmund Schofield, William Werner, Richard Grubb, and Thomas Graham miners, are, and have been for some time past, jointly interested in a tribute known as Schofield'* Tribute in the Inverness mine; that the defendant Thomas Graham has during the continuance of the said partnership failed- to perform his share ot the. work in the said tribute, and has many times charged the complainants withi dishonesty, in withholding his, share of. the profits accruing from working the tribute, and has repeatedly retused to accedejto and adopt what has been done or proposed to be done by the complainants for

the more profitable working of the said tribute; that confidence has been destroyed between the parties, and that it has become impossible for the complainants and defendant to work the said tribute as partners, as heretofore, with advantage. Wherefore the complainants claim that the Court direct that the said partnership shall be dissolved, and the assets thereof be sold, and that the proceeds of such sale may be disposed of as the Court may direct. Kichard Schofield was first called (the gazettes etc., were admitted) and deposed—l am a miner at the Thames. I have a miner's right (No. 928, Nov. 27, 1874). I am a co-owner of Schofield s tribute in the Inverness Claim. I never recognised John Graham as a partner. (It was here admitted that Thomas Graham was the owner.) There was no confidence between the partners. JPirst, Thomas Graham could not work himself, and then put his father (John Graham) on, who worked 8 weeks. ! He was doing boy's work, running 8 trucks while 25 could be rim easily.; !f hat)was the reason lof _ the dispute t be-; tween John Graham and I, resulting in a Police Court case. I asked him to put a; man on, but he would not, and I had to put: a man on out of my own pocket. That went on for about six weeks until the, crushing. Next crushing I kept a reserve fund—kept |t with the consent of Grubb; and Werner. Did not see Graham. He. kept away. The reserve fund was £50. i Paid about £13 for wages. The dividend amounted to £113 per man. Graham asked me what I was doing with a reserve fund, and did not want me to keep it. I; told him if he came up like a'man he would get every explanation he wanted. He said he did not want anything to do with us.■:; Communicated subsequently with Mr Maedonald. Graham received every half-penny he is entitled to. I had detectives up in my house looking forj specimens. I am not prepared to con-! tinue as a partner with defendant. The others say they won't work with defen-1 dant on account of his. spreading reports j as to our stealing. I fun prepared to sell ■ at a Reasonable price. I will take £50 for my share. The last dividend waisj paid seven weeks ago. No work done i since. Defendant worked a week for my: brother; then ceased, and I became a shareholder. He asked if I would take his father. I sell the gold, and look after the accounts. The company looks to me. Graham never asked for the accounts. They were always in my , hands, and my statement was always accepted. I complain that he had no confidence in. me. He is not satisfied with the dividends being small. He told me as much as that it should b« *nore.> ' I did not say I would have him ..out of the tribute in a month. I kept the reserve fund in my' pocket. I gave the men three half crowns for getting the trucks . up to prevent waiting. William Werner deposed—l have a miner's right. This is it. lam one of the plaintiffs. This action is for dissolution of partnership, Defendant, would not put a man on, and we had to advance the money out of the reserve fund. We cannot go on working with defendant satisfactorily. He won't work lik« a ' man. -He has always received his share of - the profits : I have never objected to pay him his di rid end. By MrJtfacdonald : Schofield manages all the money part of the business. He pays the dividends* I have had words with defendant. He said r he knew; more than any one else, and he knew nothing about it. I don't think much of his work. Eichard Grubb said—l am one of the partners in Schofield's tribute, and one of the complainants in the present action. I have a miner's right (produced). . The Warden said Grubb's miner's right was no good, as it had been taken out after the action had been commenced.

". Mr Tyler admitted that the mine.r's right:should have beeii in^ his possession before the commencement of tbfl action.

His Worship expressed astonished that witness should hare been guilty of such neglect. It was not; only depriving the Maories of their just due, but was actually debarring himself from taking actionwhenhe wanted reparation. Ho had every sympathy: for poor men working under great difficulties on a barren reef, but it was disgusting in a man in receipt of dividends such as £113 within three or four weeks. ; Examination continued : I with others brought this complaint for a .dissolution of partnership because Graham (the defendant) is not satisfied with the work we do; We. can't go on satisfactorily. He never comei to speak to us nor to say a word the same as others. He does not attend when the dividends are given out. The Court then adjourned for dinner, and on resuming, Mr Macdonald apprehended that they had better decide what effect Grubb'fl haying no miner's right would have before proceeding any further with the case.

Mr Tyler submitted that it was not requisite for either of the plaintiffs to to have a miner's right. The section of the Act referring to the matter required that persons should hold miner's rights, for rights, titles, or interests created or acquired under the Act, and Mr Tyler contended that the tribute was not created under the Act, but by those holding under the Act with third parties. Mr Macdonald replied, and a good deal of legal argument followed. The Warden ultimately gave judgment for defendant, with costs £7. He said he would rule in future that it would be necessary in such cases for parties to have miners' rights. In answer to His Worship as to why defendant wished to prolong the partnership when they appeared to be so antagonistic. Mr Macdonald said defendant was willing to buy the complainants out at the same price which they had offered him f «

namely, £10 per man. He was also willing to put on a wages man. His Worship suggested each shareholder should subscribe so much towards a reserve fund, to be placed in tbo Bank to the credit of the tribute. Graham agreed to that. The Court then adjourned.