PETITION.

Tuapeka Times, Volume VII, Issue 356, 16 May 1874, Page 2

PETITION.

The following petition of Mr. Bigney, of the Horseshoe .Bend, has been handecL to us for publication :—: — "To his Honor James Tifacandrev?, Esq., Superintendent, and members of the Provincial Executive of Otago. " The petition of William Rigney, of the Horseshoe Bend, Mount Benger, respectfully sheweth : " That, for several years prior to January, 1874, your petitioner was part owner of certain, mining properly, viz., water races,

reservoirs, extended claimß, &c., &c. t situated at Horseshoe Bend, aforesaid. " That, at the time mentioned, one of the shareholders applied at the Warden's Court,' Roxburgh, for a dissolution of partnership, his complaint being 'that the property was not worked to his satisfaction, and to bit low.'

" That the other shareholder, viz., James Stevenson, and your petitioner objected to such dissolution, on the grounds, if granted, it would deprive them of reaping the fruit of years of laborious toil, and the outlay of a considerable amount of capital. " That the case was heard before Warden Simpson, on the 16th January ult. " That the plaintiff then stated in his evidence, as follows : — ' I have no fault to find with my mates. There is no disagreement between us. I have no cause of dissatisfaction or complaint, excepting that the claim does not pay me.' " On the conclusion of the plaintiffs case, Warden Simpson, who was very much excited, expressed his intention of granting the dissolution, and placed the Court-book before him, apparently for that purpose, although he had not heard one word of evidence for the defence ; and, upon the solicitor for the defence stating that he intended to call witnesses, Warden , Simpson objected, saying it was useless.

"After some remarks by defendant's solicitor' your petitioner entered the witnessbox, whereupon the Warden, in an insolent and excited manner, put a number of questions totally irrelevant, apparently for the purpose of annoying petitioner, although your petitioner was not yet sworn ; and it was only after repeatedly demanding to be sworn, that the Warden administered the oath.

" After the examination of several "witnesses, it was shown that the property was worked entirely according to plaintiff's suggestions. The Warden thereupon stated that the complaint must be dismissed, at the same time adding t ' Woodhouse can still get a dissolution by taking out a summons for disagreement,' although| he (Woodhouse), as before stated, had already sworn that there was no disagreement between him and the defendants ; thus, in the opinion of your petitioner, suggesting that the plaintiff should commit perjury. "At the request ' of both sides, the case, instead of being dismissed, was adjournedjtill next Court-day, so that an arrangement m ight be arrived at. " In the meantime, the plaintiff offered his share for sale to defendants, at a price at which they declined ; but defendants offered to sell theirs to plaintiff at the price asked by him for his, but he declined to buy. "At the adjourned hearing of the case, on the 10th February, plaintiff applied to amend the complaint, to which defendant objected, upon which the Waivlen, addressing your petitioner, said : 'It is useless for you to object ; it is merely putting off the evil day for another month.' "It being 'evident that the Warden had already decided to grant the plaintiff's application, wishing to avoid further trouble and expense, and having no confidence in the integrity of Warden Simpson, the defendants had to consent to a dissolution.

" The property was therefore sold by auction on the 23rd of March by order of the Warden, and purchased by the aforesaid James Woodhouse. " Your petitioner wishes to call particular attention to the fact that the substance of plaintiff's complaint was that defendants refused to purchase his interest at the price which he chpse to fix upon it. " Wherefore your petitioner complains : " Ist. That Warden Simpson acted precipitately, illegally, and unjustly in expressing his intention of granting the plaintiffs application previous to having heard the defence, and also in objecting to hear evidence for the defence. " That he asked questions not bearing on the case at issue, for the purpose of annoying your petitioner. " 3rd. That his demeanor to your petitioner was insolent, provoking, undignified, and unbecoming a person holding the position of Warden. " 4th. That he encouraged the plaintiff tocommit perjury. sth. That his ruling, viz., that any member of a mining partnership can force a sale of his partners' property, although he may have no fault to find with them, is unfair, and calculated to discourage mining enterprise, being a direct encouragement to dishonest persons, who may have means to take advantage of their partners, and likely to prevent the union of labor and capital iv developing the resources of the country. " 6th. That, owing to his infirmity of temper, extreme excitability of disposition, he is incapable of commanding the respect which is advisable should be entertained for those who may be entrusted with the administration of justice.

"Wherefore your petitioner prays thafc you may inquire into the truth of the above complaints, and that the persons whose names are entered on the same may be called on to give evidence. " And your petitioner, as in duty bound, will every pray. The petition bears the names of nearly twenty persons, who were in Court during the hearing of the case, and whom the petitioner wishes may be called to give evidence. If Warden Simpson wished to discourage mining enterprise, and to 'depreciate the value of mining property, he could not have adopted a more effectual means of doing so, than his ruling in this case. At present, the general opinion is that there is no protection for any miner ; as according to Warden Simpson's ruling, any person who may wish to take advantage of his mates has only to cause a dispute, and then apply for a dissolution and get it. A pretty state of affairs truly. The petition was presented by G. Ireland, Esq., M.P.C., to his Honor the Superintendent, on the sth inst. It is not yet known what course the Executive may think fit to adopt in reference to this matter.