A BEACH CLAIM HOLDER’S GRIEVANCE.

Dunstan Times, Issue 231, 28 September 1866, Page 3

A BEACH CLAIM HOLDER’S GRIEVANCE.

TO THE EDITOR OF THE DUX STAN TIMES.

Alexandra, Sept. 22. Sir, —My self and two remaining mates are miners, we hold a river beaeli claim on the east bank of the Molyneux River. We have held legal possession of the ground for upwards of eighteen months. We have expended a large amount of labour, and gone to a great deal of expense in making preparations for working our ground as opportunities oft'ered by the river falling. In March last, the river having fallen low enough for us to commence operations, by stripping the ground and blasting away the rock's so as to facilitate our working the ground, when the river was at its winter level. On Saturday the 19th May, a dredge known as the Alexandra, was brought up in front of our ground. On Monday 21st, they commenced dredging on our claim. We are entitled to 45 feet along the front of the river by a depth of 50 feet, for each holder of a miner's right, and we held three men's ground, although there were live men working on the claim at that time. We ordered the drege .to stop working, and threatened to summon them if they did not. They left off work and the men went into the town. Next dav they brought Mr Thomson, gold-receiver, down to the claim, when he, Mr T., told them they were not to come in less than 7 feet of water. We explained to Mr T. at the time, that the very ground that he was giving them was workable, and we were working on it last-, year ; but he, Mr T., made the remark, that wo had more ground than we would lie ever able to work. We were then under the impression that Mr T. had power to come down as a Warden and settle it. Soon after we commenced stripping the ground oft' in a face, about six inches above the then level of the river, and stripped a flat of ground at the lower end of our claim—the Hat would square 56 feet by 50 feet, and formed a point with the rocks, &c, further out into the river, so as to create as strong a current at the point as possible, to work a screw propeller to pump the water out of the paddocks. Soon after it was finished the river rose about 5 feet, and covered all the ground wo had stripped ; the dredge taking advantage of the river rising, came close into tho shore—Wo immediately made complaints at the Camp. In the early part of June Mr Thomson came down and defined a line, taking no notice of our pegs, but taking his mark from a large rook upon the bank, and measured 4S feet from it leaving us only ;);? feet depht of claim. We objected to it and pointed out that the lino he had defined came across near about the centre of our workings. He, Mr T., remarked that it was only an imaginary line and asked whether wo v ere satisfied, he was told no, that we were entitled to 50 feet and we would have our quantity of ground. It was also pointed out to him the bank falling away through the dredge undermining it, but he could not see anything of that. He further distinctly stated that the dredge was not to retreat further back from where they were then, and not to interfere with the ground already stripped by us this winter ; after that he goes away from his word, and remarks that he is not supposed to recollect what he said previously. The dredge still further encroaches, and finding how we had been led astray by Mr T., wo take proceeding against the dredge company for encroachment on our ground. When tho Warden visited the ground on the day of the trial, the 12th June, the dredge had shifted further out into the river, and the Warden gave tho case against us. On the 25th July, one of our party applied to the Warden, praying him to visit the ground without the dredge company knowing that he was coming, for if they were aware of it they would shift further out into the river. The Warden visited the ground the same day, when we pointed out to him our pegs, and explained that we had stripped the very ground that the dredge was destroying, and lino given by Mr T. took away nearly half of our claimhe remarked that it was a very hard case, but he could not totally alter the decision given by MrT., but he distinctly told tho dredge company that they were not to come any closer than 69 feet from the rock marked by Mr T., without a distinct order from the Court. Two of my mates went with the Warden to the Camp, some of the dredge-company following • they, the dredge-company, remarked to the Warden that they only wanted to keep to the line already defined by the Court. Tho Warden, after calling for his minutes and |the documents from the last trial, stated, that the Court never defined a line. The Warden then wrote out his decision with reference to the 69 feet linedrawing two lines on tho plan, and noting them as from Ato B and from C to D. He read his decision to both parties present, distinctly telling the dredge-company, that if they injured or destroyed either of those lines, or damaged us in any way, they would be liable to heavy damages. We never have or will agree to this imaginary 48 feet line of Mr T's.. We claim our quantity of ground we are entitled to under the regulations and the river-beach frontage. Apologising for the length of this present communication. We are, Sir, yours, &c., Dukn and Party.