MIZEN SAWMILL STUDY
Copyright       David Mizen  2021
Images Added & Published by Gordon Freegard 2021

STEVENS & ATKIN   1885 - 1888

It appears that Stevens brought in a Mr. W. Atkin, the Daily News reports in October 1885:

We understand that Messrs, W. F. Stevens and W. Atkins have arranged with the trustees of Shaw's estate to carry on the business of the Canning Timber Station upon their own joint account (Unknown, News of the day, 1885).

In February 1886 the firm were advertising for bullock and horse teams for the tramway (Unknown, Wanted, 1886). A more extensive ‘tram-way’ would require more teams to operate efficiently. This seems to have led to action to recover unpaid wages, Cahill and others sued Stevens and Atkin. In April 1886 the West Australian reports:

The defendants carry on business as timber merchants at the Canning timber station,

and the plaintiffs, who were workmen in their employ, sued them to recover balance of wages alleged to be due for labour performed, the amount claimed being £32 11s. 9d. Mr. Burnside appeared for the plaintiffs,… (Unknown, Perth Local Court, 1886, p. 3).

There was further litigation alleging debts owed by the firm to others and by others to the firm. Ultimately the firm called in accountants, Bertnall Holman and Co were appointed 3rd March to receive all monies due to the firm (Stevens and Atkins, 1887). However, the next newspaper report lists the assets of the firm for sale by auction ( Sheriffs Offices, 1888). It appears that there was intervention prior to the advertised sale as a substantial part of the items to be sold were withdrawn from the sale before the auction (Unknown, Untitled, 1888). It appears that this is the start of the manifestation of EVH Keane’s plot to obtain the land, the mill and the timber license. Certificate of Title for Canning Location 75 (Volume 21 folio 209) issued to Keane on the 23rd March 1887, it is assumed that Keane took the property absolutely, the lease to Stevens and Aitkin had likely collapsed by this stage. This did not end matters.

In 1889 action was commenced in the Supreme Court to determine the state of the firm. It appears an independent auditor was appointed to act as referee. The action is summarised in the West Australian:

This was an application to adopt the report of the referee in this action. It appeared

that the plaintiff and defendant carried on business together since 1885. At the end of

1886, the settled account showed a profit of [pounds] 3,490 for the year. Mr. Atkins left Perth for Wyndham at the beginning of 1887, and returned at the end of that year, and being unable to obtain an account of the partnership's position, issued a writ for dissolution and accounts. (Unknown, In Chambers, 1889, p. 4).

The report continues:

Mr. Atkins being a sleeping partner, and placing the utmost confidence in Mr. Stevens, could not prove any of these amounts, and Mr. Stevens had failed to render assistance though constantly requested by the referee. Applications to the debtors resulted in replies that the amounts had been paid, or were covered by contra accounts, although the firm’s books had no trace of any credits for cash or contra accounts. As Mr. Stevens could alone prove the claims and would not assist the referee, the latter was unable to sue for these claims and thus see if they were due or not. Under all circumstances the referee suggested as the only possible way out of the difficulty would be to assign the assets to Stevens and charge him with the amounts alleged by him to be due to the firm. If this were adopted there would be [pounds] 1,305 18s. 2d. due to Mr. Atkins after debiting him with timber received. (Unknown, In Chambers, 1889, p. 4).

Judgement was entered for Mr Atkins. It is not clear what happened to give rise to the state of affairs or what was to happen after judgement was given in Atkin’s favour. Given the lack of clarity it was perhaps inevitable there would be further litigation. The firm’s accountant sued to recover wages allegedly owed to him. The Western Mail the summarised the proceedings:

George Rigg deposed that in 1886 he was engaged by the defendants as book-keeper at £4 per week. No time was specified at which the engagement was to terminate. The defendants commenced to discontinue payments from 1st February 1888, Witness left the defendants on the 30th June, 1888, after giving notice. Mr, W. F. Stevens offered him £30 of timber for his share of witness salary up to the 30th April, 1888, and he told witness he could get the balance from Mr. Atkins. Witness spoke to Mr. Stevens, asking him to forward the timber, and he promised to send it in a few days. It did not arrive. Witness was not discharged he gave notice that he was going to leave. …

Cross-examined. He was not incapacitated from work in January, February and March. He did not think that the books of the firm were in the Supreme Court in March. … From January the 1st to. the 30th April he was working at the books. …

For the defence Mr. Haynes called Walter Frederick Stevens, who deposed that he was in partnership with Mr, Atkins in December 1886, when the plaintiff was engaged as a book-keeper. The engagement was terminable at a week's notice on either side. He was satisfied with the plaintiff's work until about the middle of 1887, when numerous errors commenced to appear in the accounts. The business was closed in December 1887. He instructed the plaintiff to make up a balance sheet, but he did not do so. He used to stop away from the office making various excuses. For some time, he was unable to work because of hurt he received at Rockingham, where he had gone without witness's knowledge. Afterwards witness saw him in the Shamrock Hotel. He was the worse for liquor. Witness was angry and told him not to come back to his employment. After discharging the plaintiff, witness removed all the books and papers from the office to his own residence. A balance sheet was afterwards made out at the Supreme Court. He never offered to give the plaintiff £50 worth of timber. He did not say that he would pay £50 for his own share and that Mr. Atkins would pay him another £50.

The defence raised was that a dissolution of partnership between the defendant on February 7, terminated the complainant's engagement, also that no work had been done, as alleged, as the plaintiff was incapacitated from fulfilling his duties.

Judgment was given for the plaintiff for £4 ls. 8d … (Unknown, Monday March 3rd, 1890)

The upshot of the judgement was that Rigg was entitled to 1 week’s wages. However, it discloses that the partnership of Stevens and Atkins ended December 1887 and that the partnership was formally dissolved on the 7th February 1888. Following the dissolution of the partnership there was a further volume of litigation over the alleged debts of the respective parties and related matters. It should be remembered at this point that Stevens and Atkins were tenants, not owners of the timber leases and associated property. During the whole of this period the Canning Mills property and timber cutting license belonged to the Bank of New South Wales. It is unclear what steps the Bank took to recover its losses. It ought to have been clear to the Bank early in Stevens and Atkins tenancy that Stevens and Atkins were not the answer to the bank’s problems. During the period of Stevens and the partnership Stevens and Atkins the property was listed for sale as part of Shaw’s bankrupt estate.
 

Section of Lands Department Map Sourced from State Records Office item No 506547  (Department of Lands and Surveys)
 

This appears to be the situation at the end of the Stevens and Atkin occupation. The extent of the ‘tram-ways’ running back to Location 75 and Mason and Bird's Tram-way is apparent.

Note: Proposed route of railway is marked in red. The date appears to be after the auction in October 1885 when the railway was first mentioned, or, more likely a date after Keane was entered on to the title to Location 75 in 1887.

References:     Article:      David Mizen

Copyright : Gordon Freegard      2008 - 2021