WARDEN'S COUJRT, COBDEN.

Grey River Argus, Volume IX, Issue 610, 14 December 1869, Page 2

WARDEN'S COUJRT, COBDEN.

Monday, Djecsmbjsr 13. (Before J. H. Lowe, Esq. , R.M.). :■:: Moonlight v. Golden Hill Company. — Tlus was a hearing of objections lodged by the Moonlight Quartz Mining Company against tha issue of a lease i to the Golden Hill Quartz Mining Company, Moonlight Creek. ' Mr ; Perkins appeared: for % the objectors, and Mr Newton for the applicants, ■ ■■' ; ' •'•'-■ ■ '■'■ - Mr G. W. Moss, Manager of the Golden Hill Company : On behalf ot the Com,pany, I apply- for. this lease. We piopose to put on four men for the first month, and 20 men afterwards. The capital we propose to expend is L3OOO, but we are willing to increase that amount. The machinery is to be driven by water power. We propose, to commence operations whenever the lease is granted. I only know from other persons and from specimens sent down that a very good reef exists in .the ground. I had a, conversation with Mr Wylde, Manager of the ' Moonfigl \ claim, since these objections were put in, and he said they were merely nominal^that he simply wanted to protects the rights of the Moonlight Company, and to work over the land. Mr Lapham, one of the directors of the Moonlight Company, informed me that thi3 objection would not have been lodged if Mr Harris had ". not put in another objectionto the Moonlight claim. Mr Harris is one of the promo ers of this undertaking. I have heard that the Moonlight Company wish to construct shoots over the ground we have applied for. I have no objection to a clause to that effect being inserted in our lease. We are content to take the land subject to the survey. . .. Duncan M'Lean : I have been on the ground comprised in this application. There is. a quartz reef in the ground. I think it runs south, from tile Moonlight claim,, and appeared to be the same reef that had been found in "that claim. I could not sec gold in the reef, but I know parties who have pounded some of it and found. yo,ld r , ..... ••.■■;■■ G. W, Moss recalled ; We intend tunnelling ir.to the reel in the first instance to fest if-, and in the event of it giving suilic'eiit inducement to place sufficient uiHulijiiii-y on the ground to work it. It is proposed to work by water power, and there are facilities for bringing water on tv the ground. At present there, <*vjb seveji

promoters in the Golden Hill, but when, the lease is granted a -public company will, be incorporated. Shoftkl :the letiße be; granted, the promoters ate prepared tt> ? subscribe the ordinary conditions of lease. Mr Perkins, for the objectors, argued that as the creek divided the ground this was an application for two blocks of land in one leasep-and-was^n interference wit'i the proper working of the Moonlight Compauy's claim. It would shut the company off from all water communication j they would not'be -able v to 'use- the creelc for* crushing purposes, and they: would notba able to transport their quartz over the ground applied for. James Wylde, manager of the Moonlight Company said ; I know the. claim applied for by the Golden Hill Company. It comprises land on both sides of the creek. I object, because it takes away a strip of land running' betweeu the. claim and the creek, about two-thirds' the length of the claim. It was quite impossible to work the" Moonlight reefs profitably unless they had the water froiitage, It was necessary tv have machinery sites along the banks of the creek, and if the lease should be granted- to -the O olden Hill this piece of land would be utterly useless to them, their reef being on tile other side of the creek. Ido not tlihik the chain reserved on both sides of the creek is sufficient for road purposes. • - 'Cross-examined: I do not remember Mr Harris offering to give us a.ll the rights we wished over the hind ; he, only offered the right to cross the land with shoots, It, is contrary to all probability that the reef should run across the creek into the' Golden Hill's ground. I have had fifteen months' experience Of reefs on the West Coast. Messrs Perkins and Newton having addressed the Bench. The Warden said that under the regulations under which this enquiry was heJd it did not appear to rest with him to come to any any decision on the matter, with the exception of the question of cost. He would forward the evidence to the Provincial Secretary, with his opinion thereon. (The legal gentlemen requested him to state his opinion publicly.) The first objection as to the existing interest over part of the ground applied for was in part good. As. to the second objection, that this application was for two blocks of land and not one — if the stream in Moonlight Creek were included (being required for public interest generally) he held that it was two block 3 ; but he failed to see that under the regulations, two blocks could not be granted in one lease. He held that whatever was the intention or motive of the objectors, they had one very strong ground for that hearing, having secured to themselves what they could not have done in any other way., He would order both parties to pay their own costs.