352
THE HONGKONG WEEKLY PRESS AND
OLIVERS FREEHOLD MINES, LD. The sixth annual general meeting of share
There were no remarks, and the CHAIRMAN presided, and the others, present were Messrs.proposed the a'option of the report and C. Ewens, J. A. Jupp, A. H. Mancell, W. H. acconnte. Mr MANCELL (conded, and the Potts, etc.
holders was held on the 25th ult. Mr. Hart Buck
The CH 18MAN said-Gentlemen, Tho ré- port and statement of accounts having been with you for some days, I will, with your per- mission, follow the usual custom and take them as read. It is with much regret that your Con- sulting Committee and General Managers have to come before you with such disappointing results. As your Chairman told you at the last meeting, about this time last year, everything depended on what was found at the 400 ft. and 500 ft. levels, and unfortunate- ly, as you already know, the developments at these deep levels were most unsatisfactory, the lode being split up and of no value. At the same time, the stopes in the upper levels became suddenly poor, and funds being almost ex- hausted there was nothing for it but to shut down the mine, which was done about the end of June. Mr. Roberts then offered to take the mine on tribute on oer ain conditions, and we
called a private meeting of shareholders for the 24th July to discuss the situation and learn your wishes as to the offer made by Mr. Roberts, but not a single shareholder, outside your Con- sulting Committee and General Managers, put in an appearance, so we decided to accept Mr. Roberts's offer as the only possible course open to us. The tributors worked the mine for about four months with a loss to themselves of nearly £1,000, when they gave notice in Decem- ber to determine the agreement, but offered to make a fresh contract on easier terms to themselves. As there was nothing else to be done, except immediate liquidation, the arrange- ment was made, and the mine is now being worked und r this second tribute agreement, but, so far, the results have been very un- satisfactory, and we anticipate Mr. Roberts will very shortly give up this tribute also. We only made this last tribute arrangement to enable the Company to keep the mine running and fulfil the labour conditions in the hope of a favour- able opportunity arising for disposing of the property and plant, as we do not feel justified, in the light of our past experience, in asking you to subscribe any further capital, but think that the only thing to be done is to wind up and endeavour to 8.ve as much as possible, It is very disappointing after five years to find ourselves in this position but we have had a good run for our mousy, and were the stone a little less hard and a little bit richer we should, I am con- fident, have made a big success of the Company. As it is, we have just missed being successful. We have taken out of The Eureka Mine during the last five years $450,000,00 worth of gold, bat unfortunately in has cost us more than that to get it. This
по new experience; it has happened to hundreds of other Companies and will happen to thousands more and all we can do is to make the best of it. I may mention that neither Mr. Roberts not your General Managers have drawn any fees since June last, and your Consulting Committee have drawn no fees at all. An ex- traordinary general meeting will probably be called shortly to pass the necessary resolutions for winding up the Company. Meanwhile, if favourable opportunities occur, we shall proceed with the the work of realising the Company's assets. Before moving the adoption of the report, I will read you a telegram we received from Mr. Roberts on Monday last. It is as fol- lows:-"Is there any possibility of £1,000 loan on debentures. After a close investigation, I am of opinion that it is desirable to go on prospecting in a north direction. Will take the management, superintending, everything at a salary of £100 and commission of 10 per cent on actual realised profits. I strongly recommend? Since receiving this telegram, we have had a letter from Mr. Roberts, dated 2nd April, in which he makes no mention of any improvement having taken place, and in fact informs us that on the next fortnight's developments would depend whether he should continue his tribute or not. Your General anagers and your Consulting Comittee are of (pinion that it would not be advisable to £1,000 by debentures, as the amount would be too small in our opinion to give us
motion was carried,
Mr. JUPP proposed that Mr W. H. Potts be elected andifor for the ensning year. Mr EWENS seconded. Carried.
This was all the business.
M.7.6. 1902.
shall, however, be pleased to hear any remarks Carrington, the then Chief Justice of Hong- reasonable prospects of achieving anything. I¡ Court from a judgement of Sir Jõhu
kong, delivered on the 1st Doc mber, 1900, from any shareholder on this subject.
The decision of the 24th March, 1902, discharged a Rule Nisi which had been obtained by the plaintiffs on 13th March, 1902, calling upon the Attorney-General to show cause why they should not have such special leave to appol, and it accordingly refused to grant snch leave. It is from this refusal that the plaintiffs now desire to appeal to His Majesty in Council. It will conduce to clearness if some few facts and dates relating to this matter are set forth. On 22nd November, 1898, Major-General Black, C.B., the Officer The third ordinary meeting of shareholders then Administering the Government of in the above Company was held at the offices of this Colony, awarded a sum of $15,000, the general managers, Messrs. John D. Hum-under phreys & Son, on the 25th ult. Mr. Hart Praya Reclamation Ordinance, 1889, by way Section 7, sub sec. VI, of the Buck occupied the chair, and others pre-of compensation for any injury sustained by sent were Messrs. C. Ewens. J. A. Jupp, A. P. the plaintiffs. Howard and Stephens, by the Nobbs, W. D. Sutton, A. H. Mansell, W. Hutton Potts, Wong Man Lam, and J. D. Cottel (secretary).
QUEEN, MINES, LD.
The notice convening the meeting having been read,
The CHAIRMAN said-Gentlemen, the report and statement of accounts having been in your hands for some days, I will, with your permis- sion, follow the usual custom and take them as read. No work having been done at the mine for the last twelve months the accounts, as you will see, present an almost identical appearance with those issued last year, and I may remark that no fees have been drawn by the general managers. We told you at the last general meeting that the only thing to do was to await the result of our neighbours, the Olivers Com- pany's, operations, as their success would not only have enhanced the value of our ground bat the 2,000 Olivers "A" shares held by this Com- to us, would naturally be of much greater value, pany, as well as the crushing plant belonging Unfortunately the Olivers operations have turned out most disappointing, and as we have no further hopa from this source the only thing to be done is to go into liquidation and realise what we can for our plant and property We anticipate, therefore, that we shall shortly call an extraordinary general meeting to pass the necessary resolutions for winding up. If any shareholder would like any further information I shall be pleased to give it.
There were no questions, and on the motion of the CHAIRMAN, seconded by Mr. MANSELL, the report and accounts as presented were adopted and passed.
The only other business before the meeting was the election of an auditor, and on the motion of the CHAIRMAN, seconded by Mr. EwENS, Mr. W. Hutton Potts was reappointed
to the office.
+
SUPREME COURT.
Saturday, 26th April.
In Original JURISDICTION.
BEFORE HIS HON. W. MEIGH GOODMAN (CHIEF JUSTICE) AND HIS HONOUR T. SERCOMBE SMITH (ACTING PUISNE JUDGE),
HOWARD AND STEPHENS v. THE
ATTORNEY-GENERAL.
Plaintiffs asked leave to appeal to His Majesty in Privy Council from a decision of the Full Court on 24th March, refusing to grant plaintiffs special leave to appeal to the Full Court from a judgement of Sir John Carrington delivered on 1st December, 1900. Mr. M. J. D. Stephens, appeared in person, and not in his capacity as a The Attorney-General was not solicitor. present.
After hearing arguments adduced by Mr. Stephens,
The Chief Justice said-This is a petition of Mr. Thomas Howard and Mr. Matthew John Denman Stephens, the plaintiffs in an action brought against the Attorney-General of Hongkong, asking that they may have leave to appeal to His Majesty the King in Privy Council, from a decision, which they call in their petition "a judgement," of the Full Court of this Colony, delivered on the 24th March, 1902, the effect of which was to refuse to grant to the plaintiffs special leave to appeal to the Fall
|
|
reclamation works carried out under the
It is not neces-
authority of that Ordinauce. The plaintiffs, not being satisfied with that award, brought a pétition against the Attorney-General of the Colony under the provisions of Section. 83. of the Hongkong Code of Civil Procedure, 1873, at that time in force. (Ordinanc› No. 13 of 1873). Section 83 provided that: All claims against the Government of the Colony of the sime nature as claims within the provisions of
he consent of the Governor, be preferred in 'The Petitions of Right Act, 1860,' may, with the Supreme Court in a suit instituted by the claimant as plaintiff against the Attorney- General as defendant." filed on 21st December, 1899, and claimed to That petition was
have the award in question wholly set aside and declared by the Court to be wholly aall and void and of no effect." sary for the Court, on thia occasion, to proceedings of this kind come within the give any opinion on the question whether purview of the Petition of Right Act, 1860. The answer to the petition, besides raising various issues of fact, raised one of law, which was ordered to be tried before the issues of fact, The issue of law, as settled by the Court, was as follows: Assuming all the facts stated in the petition to be true, and, having regard to the provisions of the Praya Reclamation Ordinance, 1889, has the Court jurisdiction to enquire into the proceedings connected with the award refer- red to in the petition, and to set aside the said award and d. clare it null and void"? On 1st December, 1900, the then Chief Justice, Sir. John Carrington, delivered a written, consider- ed, judgement in favour of the defendant, hold- ing that the Court had not such jurisdiction, owing to the wording of the Praya Reclamation Ordinance. Instead of promptly appealing from that judgement to the Fall Court, if they were dissatisfied with it, the plaintiffs presented a petition of right to His Majesty, the King, ad they allege that they did so under the ad- vice of their counsel. They state, in an affidavit, - that they forwarded this petition to their London agents on 14th September, 191, for presenta- tion to His Majesty in Council. This proceeding was held to be contrary to established precedent. Qu the 20th January, 1902, the plaintiffs found that the course they had adopted was irregular and out of order. They then, instead of im- mediately asking for special leave to appeal from the judgement of Sir John Carrington to the Fall Court, under Section 606 of the new Code of Civil Procedure, 1901 (which took effect from 1st July, 1901, and limited the ordinary right of appeal to six months) commenced writing to the Colonial Secretary with a view, as they say in an affidavit, to a settlement of the matters in question. The Colonial Secretary, as appears in the letters annexed to the affidavit of the Crown Solicitor, dated 22nd March, 102, wrote to the plaintiffs on the 31st. January, 1902, explaining the position of the Government and pointing out that His Excellency the Officer now Administering the Government had no power to alter the amount of General Black's award and adding that His Excellency saw no necessity for continuing the with regard to the claim correspondence
many years. which had been going on för The result of the correspondence not proving satisfact ry to the plaintiffs they obtained on 13th March, 1802, the Rule Nigi (which has been mentioned) calling upon the Attorney General to show cause why they should not have leave to