WARDEN'S COURT.

Thames Star, Volume VIII, Issue 2853, 6 April 1878, Page 2

WARDEN'S COURT.

THIS DAY.

(Before W. Eraser, Esq., Warden.)

H. GOLDSMITH T. GOLDEN ABBOW 0.M.C0

This was a plaint brought against the defendants by the Mining Inspector for neglecting to work their pound in the manner prescribed in the license, and for neglecting to pay rent on No. 7 machine, Tairua, whereby the plaintiff asked to be put in possession. Mr Brassey appeared for the plaintiff, and Mr Macdonald for defendant.

Mr Brassey put in the Gazette appointing Captain Goldsmith Mining Inspector. He said that the Golden Arrow was without directors. -

His Worship asked Mr Macdonald if there were no directors how had be authority to appear. It had been decided over and over again that counsel must produce authority under the seal of the company. . . E. M. Mitchell, the legal manager of the company, pfored that there were no directors to the company. He had given the instructions to defend this action on his own authority. The directors parted with their shares three or four months agt?-' • . " ' ' ' . Mr Macdonald read the 4th lection of the Mining Companies Act, which showed that the directors remained in office until tEeir successors were appointed. 'His Worship said that would not do in; cases of disqualification. The directors; had ceased to bo directors when they parted with their shares. Mr Brassey said, as a matter of com* mon law, a solicitor could only represent a corporation under iti seal. He urged that the company had then no locus standi. " ;

His Worship said he would mako a note of the objection. The next thing was would the defendant giro security for costs. . • .. • j

Mr Macdonald said he was willing to. be 12 months looking for security for costs. ....■■'•■:

His Worship said it would be better to go on with the evidence. Henry Goldsmith, sworn, deposed—-I am Mining Inspector for' the Hauraki district. I produce my appointment under the band of tbe Governor, and the Gazette containing the notice of my appointment.: I sue for possession of the N0..7 machine site, which has already been forfeited. It had been unused for three months.

By Mr Atacdonald—l am the plaintiff in this action, and not that gentleman (Mr Day kin.) Mr Brassey objected to such evidence. Mr Macdonald said he meant that the Mining .Inspector was prostituting his office by bringing an action at the instance of private parties. It might hare been instituted from the purest possible motivet, but it was a prostitution of the office. ' ' -. ■ N

His Worship said that that was not proper evidence. Examination continued—l hare not a miners' right. A. J. Allom, sworn, deposed—l am Mining Registrar for the Hauraki district. I produce the register of machine sites.

Mr Macdonald hero objected to this evidence being taken as his clients were not in possession. « His Worship intimated that that did not nullify their liability. Examination continued—-The Golden Arrow G.M.Co. are the registered owners of the No. 7 "machine site. The rent on the Golden Arrow was not paid till this morning, when Mr Macdonald paid it. I entered it to the credit of the Golden Arrow G.M.Co. There js no other Golden Arrow G.M.Co. .

John D. Wickham before being sworn asked for his expenses. Mr Brassey said he would see him paid. He then deposed as follows. lam a L£- broker residing on the Thames. lam a director of the Golden Arrow G.M.Co., but uot a shareholder. I have seen the register of No. 7 machine site. It is in the hands of my solicitor, Mr Miller. I gave it to him, but I don't know whether as J. D. Wickham or as a director of the company. Mr Macdonald submitted that the action must fail on the following grounds:—(L) That the plaintiff had

not a miner's right; (2.) That it must be proved that the company existed; (3). The plaintiff had only s rigjit to recoTcr when the defendant was in the position of bring the Hccnseo of the machine site. Certuin circumstances had caused the forfeiting of the machine site before the action wasjaken. He submitted also that the register could not be taken as proof of the existence of the company : the license, which had not been produced, alone could' prove its existence. He •eferred to the fact of the payment of the rent before the* action was heard, and argued that the payment of the rent did away with the forfeiture. The case, he contended, was analogous with the case of a landlord and tenant, who, when he had paid the rent, was not liable to forfeiture.

His Worship said there was no analogy. The landlord and tenant had certain rights under common law and statute, while the present case was under a special Act. J. B. Mason, sworn, deposed—l am bailiff of this Court, and had something to do in connection with, the Golden Arrow G.M.Co. I put a man in posses* sion until the properly was sold. I did not sell the machine site twice. , By Mr Macdonald—l took possession on the 6th or 7th of February. Mr Macdonald put in his general retainer from.the Golden Arrow G.M.Co.

His Worship said he would take it for what it was worth.

Mr Brassey said if it was necessary to. the case to hare the certificate of corporation, he could put Mr Mitchell in the box to prove where it was. Mr Macdonald said it was in their possession, but he declined to giro it up. His Worship said its production was not necessary. Mr Macdonald then addressed the Court, arguing at considerable length on the points he had already adduced, especially referring to the question of possession. . -

Mr Brassey replied submitting that the evidence was clear that the ground had not been used, and that the rent was in arrear when the action was taken.

His Worship said he would reserve his judgment, but in any case the defendants would hare to pay the colt of the nonpayment of rent. The costs amounted to £7 2s.

GOLDSMITH T. GOLDEN ABBOTT.

This was a plaint against the Golden Arrow for non-payment of rent on machine site.No. .7, and non-working. Mr Macdonald said that they admitted that the site had never been used: the came evidence in the last case would do for this one. .

His Worship said that he would reserve judgment in this case also.

CHESTS* T. THOM AND SICE.

This was a plaint brought against the. defendants on the plea of non-working the Just-in-Time claim in a manner prescribed by the Act. His Worship said the defendant Thorn had written him a letter, saying that as he had only been served three days ago he asked a remand for a week. . ■■•' -,- ' Plaintiff agreed to this, and the ease was adjourned. : ■ . ! Court adjourned.