Untitled

Grey River Argus, Volume XI, Issue 968, 2 September 1871, Page 2

Friday, September 1. The case was resumed at 10 o'clock this morning. " ; Robert, Anderson was one of the shared holders in the . Sising Sun claim. Took it up in November, 1870. The ground was situated on a terrace. 'They took up a tunnel claim in three blocks of four men each, and George Venables; the manager, was sent in to obtain amalgamation. After obtaining the order they drove a. tunnel till they, cameto the. lead, when they sunk a shaft* -' The cost of the tunnel was about LBOO or L9OO. It took twelve men five months, working night and day, to make it. It was in good repair. . The tunnel /was used. Without it they could not work the ground. Could not sink a shaft without the tunnel,. M'Grath and party were the first who annoyed them, and in consequence of an action in the Warden's Court, they. reduced their ground and remarked tfieir claim to 720 ft oy 60ft from 850 ft by 75ft. • They still held the claim. He pointed out the original pegs to Mr Cooper and Mr Wylde. By Mr Guinness : The western pegs had never been removed. New pegs were placed, but he could not tell the distance between them. ' ;;• -. William Marshall Cooper, was District Surveyor for Greymonth. The plan produced was made by him. The claim was situated on flat swampy ground. The ground was irregular. The tunnel was a properly, constructed tunnel., Jt was driven underground about ten ohains. The original easterly pegs were pointed out to him. The two present south-east and south-west pegs were both on the f

lat. The present mode of draining was ;he best. As far as he knew all the jlaims on the Stony Lead were extended Slaims. *- v ~~^ ByvMr Haivey : Saw the men working bhe claim by trucking washdirt to the shaft. It was not a tunnel tail-race, but a drainage tunnel. In such claims dirt was trucked, through the. tunneja, s J&flnsls might be used as a tail-race, or as a' dram. Had never been called on to survey spur claims. Had never seen a claim held as • spur clain>~ There were tunnel claims on the lead on which the tunnels were used for sending washdirt through and as tailraces. - v, • ;. George Venables was manager of the Rising Sun claim, and remembered taking up the claim. Three claims amalgamated to'put in a tunnel as the. ground was ; very wet. They then took up the ground as oue party, and threw put the blocks left between the claims, and; 7oft from Jthe •north : They bought an open tailrace, anil commenced to drive a tunnel from thVt'errace. They drove it 700 ft, and it cost between L7OO and LBOO. (Produced certificate of registration of tunnel.) Within the boundaries elf ,the claims they had a tunnel 230 ft long. The tunnel was used for drainage and working purposes. . . : : '■..,- ?• By JVIr G.uinness : Have never trucked out of the registered tunnel. Used the main drive for working purposes. The tunnel was used for drainage purposes. No walls had been left on each aide of the claim. There were spur claims adjoining, hut none taken up under 1 the Hoos Regulations. Another party had tried the ground, but had to abandon it. It was impossible to bottom a shaft on "tb?e grSuudtill'itwja -drained. "Bifennttn paid then 30s a week as compensation for drainage. James Wylde re-called : The tunnel could be used for trucking washdirt. William MUler.stated the height of the tunnel was 4ft 6in, and width from 3ft to 3ft 6m. : >.'-. r« '■■; ..-; v=:'.- ■•:-'. - ■-■■■'"i ?■ This closed the cases ;: '> '■■?*. Mr Perkins; at great lengthy contended that the judgment of the Warden in the case of M'Grath and party should be taken as a judgment imrem, and should bar all further , action. - He argued, that mining cases were similar to cases in the Admiralty Court,: in regard to forfeiture. Mr Perkins then- quoted f ? Taylocon Evi,vidence" in support : of his argument. Then there was the judgment in the, case of Hearty : . and party, and in which. Diamond, must clearly be. regarded as winter parties, five of the present plaintiffs being in that action. He argued that the claim was' a spur claim- within the meaning of the. Act, and that thes tunnel was necessary for the- proper working of the ground. ;., - ■ : • „.:..•:. ; >" Mr Harvey replied, and urged that 4he case of -M'Grath and party could not be taken as a case in rem, nor could Diamond be regarded as inter parties in the hut case tried. It was absurd to suppose that the tunnel was anything else bet a tailrace. With regard to the spur claim clause in the Regulations (Hoos') it was vague and uncertain, and must' be taken in connection with the other clauses;' It was clearly an ordinary claim, Mr Harvey concluded a clever address by pointing out the defendants lhad never arnal* _ -juwttawL because_jkbiy\Jound ,flnt that they had no rignfWTnriio. Mr Harvey quoted various authorities in. support 6f His line of argument. * ..?. His Honor Baid that, in giving judgment in the case, the. en^a, of justice did not require that he should decide on. the validity of the various Rules and Regulations which had been submitted to him; if that had been required from him. he should have to have taten time tti ! consider his decision. The point that he should rest upon was that of inter parties. There was *anbther point which, however, he was not required to go so far as, and therefore he would not deal with it, and that was the judgment given by the Warden in the case of M'Grath and -party. He would not* gay that was a judgment in rem Hearty and party had brought a case, similar in every respects to the present one, and whichhad much, if not the wholej of the same elements as in that which had been hear*!' before him. In the case of Hearty ami party, a company had hsenifnrmed to take up certain ground claimed by Venables and party. That ca3e was decided in favor of the defendants in the present action. Whereupon Keating says to Diamond,' "El win this case, I will give my share to you." Keating lost his case, and said, " I will have no more to do with if,* arid steps ontj on which Diamond took his place, and, as he said, formed another company, containing the whole of the. party of Hearty and party, with one or two exceptions, to try the defendant^ .. t . right to the ground over again. If Diamond was not a partner de facto before i the issne of the last case, he wus privy, cognisant, and interested. As he said be- '■ fore, if he had ■been callediapon to decide on the Bules and Regulations, it would have been one of great difficulty, but at present he .had nothing to do with them; j He should decide in favor of defendants, as the case had already been decided in&# paHies by a competent tribunal, and it was never contemplated that lit^ation should be continuous. Judgment for de^ fendants, with costs. •'