August  i,  1892.]  THE  TROPICAL  AGRICULTURIST, 
MILDURA. 
[Mr.  W.  A.  Tyt'er  sends  us  the  following  cuttings, 
and  writes: — “ Please  mention  that  I sent  them 
to  show  1 mean  honestly  by  your  readers,  eo  as  to 
show  them  both  sides  of  the  question.” — Ed.  T.  A.] 
Milddea  Irrigation  Company. 
An  extraordinary  general  meeting  of  the  sharehold- 
ers in  the  Mildura  Irrigation  Company  waB  held  last 
week  at  Mildura  to  appoints  committee  to  confer  with 
the  directors  as  to  the  working  of  the  company.  The 
chair  was  taken  by  Mr.  W.  B.  Ohaffey,  one  of  the 
directors,  and  Messrs.  F.  Hodge  and  W.  M.  PatersoD, 
directors,  were  also  on  the  platform.  Mr.  N.  Jamieson, 
in  moving  the  first  resolution,  said  that  it  was  originally 
intended  simply  to  appoint  a committee  to  oonfer  with 
the  directors,  but  within  the  last  week,  in  ooDsequenoe 
of  representations  made  to  them,  the  directors  agreed 
to  enlarge  the  field  of  notion  by  empowering  the 
proposed  committee  to  make  the  fullest  inquiry  into 
the  position  and  working  of  the  company.  The  pre- 
sent action  had  been  caused  by  the  uneasiness  and 
mistrust  felt  throughout  the  settlement.  This  feeling 
was  mainly  attributable  to  ignorance  in  regard  to  the 
formation  of  the  company,  its  right  standing,  and  the 
extent  of  the  liability  of  the  shareholders,  and  also  as 
to  the  distribution  of  the  shares  and  the  powers  con- 
ferred by  their  possession  and  as  to  the  precise  rela- 
tions of  the  company  with  Ohaffey  Brothers  Limited. 
The  resolution  was  as  follows  : — “ That  a committee  be 
appointed  to  confer  with  the  directors,  aDd  to  inquire 
into  the  constitution,  hnance,  and  general  manage- 
ment of  the  affairs  of  the  company  ; that  for  this  pur- 
pose all  documents,  books  and  papers  the  property  of 
the  company  be  open  to  them  for  inspection,  and  that 
the  offioers  of  the  oompany  be  instructed  to  give  the 
committee  every  assistance  and  information,  and  that 
the  committee  report  on  the  above  and  any  other  matters 
connected  with  the  interests  of  the  company  to  the 
annual  general  meeting  in  May,  or  to  a meeting  of 
shareholders  to  be  called  forthat  purpose and  it  waB 
carried  unanimously.— Sydney  Mail , April  23rd. 
WATER  RIGHTS  AT  MILDUEA. 
Mildura,  May  4. — The  first  sitting  of  the  County  Court 
in  Mildura  was  held  today  under  Judge  Gaunt.  There 
were  ten  cases  on  the  list  altogether,  one  of  which, 
Cobram.  and  Mahonyv.  The  Mildura  Irrigation  Company , 
for  damages  arising  from  insufficient  water  supply,  was 
of  considerable  importance  as  touching  settlers’  general 
water  rights  in  connection  with  the  company. 
In  opening  the  case  the  plantiffs’  counsel,  Mr,  C.  E. 
Sewell,  said  the  action  was  brought  to  recover  the  sum 
of  £187  6s  for  losses  sustained  by  them  owing  to  the 
refusal  and  neglect  of  the  defendant  company  to 
supply  sufficient  water,  whereby  certain  vines  and 
vegetables  were  destroyed.  In  order  to  have  a clear 
idea  of  the  matter,  he  said  it  would  be  necessary  in 
the  first  place  to  refer  to  the  agreement  between  the 
Government  and  Chaffey  Bros.  Limited.  One  of  the 
conditions  of  that  agreement  is  that  in  every  sale  or 
transfer  of  land  by  Chaffeys  a sufficient  water  right 
shall  be  secured  to  the  purchaser  to  be  held  with 
and  run  with  such  land  as  a perpetual  easement,  so 
far  as  the  same  may  be  secured  by  the  licenses.  As  a 
convenient  mode  of  securing  this  water  right,  Chaffey 
Bros,  created  a separate  company  under  the  title  of  the 
Mildura  Irrigation  Oompany.  The  plaintiffs  bought  a 
section  of  land,  being  a portion  of  50,000  acres  granted  to 
Chaffey  Bros,  under  the  agreement  referred  to.  On  mak- 
ing the  purohase  they,as  do  all  other  purchasers,  signed 
an  agreement  aooepting  shares,  oce  share  for  each  acre 
purchased  in  the  Mildura  Irrigation  Company  in 
satisfaction  of  the  water  right,  thereby  relieving  the 
Chaffeys  from  the  water  conditions  in  their  Crown 
grant.  Mr.  Sewell,  however,  contended  that  the  pur- 
chasers were  still  entitled  to  not  less  than  the  water 
rights  conditioned  in  the  Government  grant,  but  a 
clause  in  the  agreement  stipulates  that  the  water 
may  be  supplied  at  such  times  aud  in  such  quantities 
as  directors  of  the  Irrigation  Company  think  fit. 
Judge  Gaunt  said,  before  considering  what  the  plain- 
107 
tiffs  were  entitled  to,  it  must  be  ascertained  whether 
a shareholder  could  sue  the  company.  This  was  an 
action  to  recover  damages  from  a corporation  of 
which  the  plaintiffs  were  members. 
Counsel  argued, that  his  clients  were  entitled  to 
sue  the  company  for  breaoh  of  agreement, 
Judge  Gaunt  said  he  knew  of  no  case  of  the  kind. 
A member  of  a company  was  in  the  position  of  a 
partner,  and  could  not  sue  for  damages.  They  were 
Dot  now  considering  the  Chaffeys’  agreement. 
The  plaintiffs  in  signing  the  agreement  had  dis- 
charged them  from  liability.  Whether  the  Chaffeys 
could  thus  relieve  themselves  of  responsibility 
by  handing  over  their  duties  to  another  party 
— namely,  the  defendant  company — was  not  a matter 
then  before  him. 
Mr.  Sewell : — Then  have  the  shareholders  no 
remedy  ? 
His  Honour: — They  have  as  shareholders  certain 
powers  in  respect  to  the  company  itself. 
Mr,  0.  F.  James,  for  the  Irrigation  Company,  said 
the  defence  rested  on  the  following  points  : — (1)  The 
company  was  under  no  agreement  to  supply  sufficient 
water  to  plaintiffs’  vines  and  vegetables  ; (2)  that,  in 
fact,  there  was  a sufficient  supply  ; (3)  that  this  supply 
was  given  as  an  act  of  grace;  (4)  that  there  was  no 
obligation  on  the  part  of  the  defendant  company  to 
supply  any  water  before  the  necessary  works  were 
constructed.  Even  if  the  liability  of  the  company  wore 
admitted  the  action  was  improperly  brought,  and  the 
remedy  should  be  sought,  if  at  all,  at  equity,  not  at 
common  law.  For  the  defence  it  could  also  be  shown 
that  the  plaintiffs’  loss  was  due  to  their  negligence 
and  incompetence.  He  (Mr.  James)  regretted  that  a 
technical  question  had  arisen,  as  the  defendant  oom- 
pany would  have  preferred  to  go  into  the  matter 
on  its  merits.  At  the  same  time  be  contended  that 
the  plaintiffs,  as  shareholders,  were  co-partners,  and 
as  co-partners  should  have  sued  in  equity. 
His  Honour  said  that  was  his  view  of  the  case, 
and  the  plaintiffs  were  non-suited,  costs  to  follow  the 
verdict. — Australasian,  May  14th. 

THE  CEYLON  TEA  INDUSTRY. 
Ceylon,  14th  June  1892. 
To  the  Editor,  the  Financial  News, 
Sir, — The  correspondence  published  by  you  under 
the  above  has  been  copied  into  the  Ceylon  papers, 
and,  no  doubt,  has  been  read  with  much  interest  by 
a large  proportion  of  the  planters  here. 
Mr.  John  Ferguson’s  letter  to  you  of  19th  May  has 
put  the  matter  fairly  before  you ; he  has  grasped  the 
subject  with  great  clearness. 
I venture  now  to  make  a few  comments,  beoause 
there  is  not  a little,  but  a very  great  misconception 
of  the  matter  of  tea  growing  and  its  manufacture 
existing  in  London,  and  I,  and  a good  maDy  other 
planters,  have  suffered  from  the  position  of  knowledge 
wrongly  assumed  by  non-practical  men  at  home,  who 
invariably  cry  for  quality,  quality , without  in  the 
least  knowing  how  this  speciality  is  attained  on  the 
majority  of  estates. 
In  the  first  plaoe,  it  is,  no  doubt  a well  established 
fact  that  the  Ceylon  climate  is  the  best  known  for 
the  vigorous  growth  of  the  tea  hush  and  consequent 
11  flashing.”  Bain  falls  in  every  month  of  the  year. 
The  soil  never  becomes  parched,  and  bushes  in  many 
districts  are  ready  for  tipping  from  7 to  8 weeks 
after  pruning.  Compare  this  condition  with  Indian 
seasons,  where  they  have  two  months’  drought  and 
the  plucking  is  done  in  about  six  months  of  the 
year.  So  much  for  our  climate  ■ a few  words  now 
about  the  soil. 
None  of  your  correspondents  appear  to  have  laid 
stress  on  the  fact  that  the  great  majority  of  estates 
are  not  opened  out  on  virgin  soil,  but  on  ooffee 
estates  from  20  to  50  years  of  age;  this  fact  must 
influence  the  quality  according  to  the  circumstances 
of  each  estate,  its  particular  district,  aud  the  ‘lay’ 
of  the  laud  and  the  number  of  years  the  land 
has  been  exposed  to  the  sun  and  washed  by  heavy 
