THE ORWELL CREEK RUSH.

Grey River Argus, Volume XII, Issue 1481, 3 May 1873, Page 2

THE ORWELL CREEK RUSH.

(to .the editor.)

In your issue of 21st April appears the report of a Warden's case heard in the Ahaura (Henderson v. Camiloli and party) in which, if the decision of the Warden be the correct one, in strict accordance with the letter and spirit of the Mining Rules, then the sooner some alteration be made in said rules, rendering the clause relating to base-lines more explicit and within the comprehension- of ordinary mortals, the better for the mining community, otherwise endless litigation and great injustice to the occupiers of spare ground must, ever result from aset-of rules that makes provision and only legislates for the fortunate being or beings that are luckily the first to mark put their claims, no matter' how inordinately greedy their appetite for. a larger area than by law they are entitled to:

In the case above cited Henderson took possession of 82ft of spare ground' between t*o claims, obtained, a registered right to drive a tunnel 400 ft, and literally was holding his claim and enjoying the same privileges as the shareholders in the adjoining claims, one and all having pegged off their ground from the base-line .they had adopted, when in steps Mr Surveyor and declares that- the line shall run in an entirely new direction* which of course alters the boundary lines of the marked oqt claims. Camiloli at once-taking advantage of the alteration, thereby intersecting Henderson's claim and taking about one-half of his ground from him, which the Warden granted to Camililo. Now, this is where I fail. to see the justice of .his decision, for if Camiloli be allowed to alter his boundaries and place, them at right angles with the surveyor's base line, then ; surely Henderson or ( any . other > parsy should be allowed equal privileges, provided that their title to the ground! was good prior to the survey of the new base line. I may be obtuse, but I certainly cannot understand why Henderson should have to give up one one-half of his claim merely to allow Camiloli to get"--a'fall-sized claim with right angle, boundary lines to the new base^ unless that his greed in having originally marked out 40ft more ground than he' was* entitled to should snbject him to the kind considerations of the Warden. But the, Judge himself in giving decision said that Camiloli and party were wrong-doers in the first instance, because they marked out more ground than they could, claim, and yet, in the face of this assertion, he dismisses the case, rind allows the first occupiers, who, mind you, were also the first wrong-doers, to. re-peg their boundary lines, thereby cutting Henderson J rind party out of the half of their ground, and for no other reason than that they held the surplus ground, and must; out 61 their little, help to supply the wants of their full-sized claim neighbor. It must be patent to those who read the report of the

above-named case, that all the claimholders prior to the arrival of the surveyor acknowledged a base line of their own, according to which line they all ran their parallel boundary lines ; and amongst these claimholders rank Henderson and party, the only difference being that they aid not hold a full-sized claim, therefore if when the Government surveyor struck a new base, any one of the shareholders were permitted to alter their boundaries, all ought to have the 'same privilege accorded to them, otherwise some one claim, Henderson's in the present case, must suffer to allow for the alteration of the boundaries ; if I hold a number of feet, say 82, along the base line, surely on the principle of all frontage rules I ought to claim the same number of feet at the back, otherwise I must abandon the belief that two parallel lines can never meet. It is unreasonable to suppose that miners can wait for a surveyor to lay off a base line, and, until he arrives, pegging out claims must go on, even though the base line should only exist in the imagination of the claimholders, then should that functionary deem it expedient to alter the base line, and move the claims, all I have to say is one and all should be served alike, the same number of feet being re!>resented at the back as the front of the cad, otherwise do not let the surveyor interfere with marked out claims, but commence his base line from the last claim pegged out. It would save much trouble if when a new lead is struck and a prospecting claim granted, a surveyor or authorised person were to accompany the prospectors and strike oft a base line before a multiplicity of claims and interests could possibly have been created. In older mining communities than ours the surveyor is most punctual in marking off the course of the lead as every additional claim strikes the run, but it matters not how often (on the frontage system) what we here term the base line is altered, the claimholders do not either increase or decrease the size of their claims, for when the parallel lines of one claim are marked off every claim moves up to those lines in the rotation they stand on the lead, so that everybody continues to hold his full area, for all the alteration that occurs in the course of the lead, and I do not think we can do better than, when practicable, to follow the example of the elder mining countries. I am &c., Miner. Orwell Creek, April 25. [The defendants in the case referred to above were the prior occupants, and as such were entitled to their full quantity of ground when the re-marking of claims took place consequent on the laying off of the true base-line by the Government Surveyor. Our correspondent is quite correct in holding the belief that parallel lines can not meet, but, according to our mining correspondent's reports, the imaginary base-line taken by the first claimholders in the Orwell Creek Lead, and the line laid off by Mr Lewis, ran in nearly opposite directions, so that the parallels on the old and new lines must of necessity intersect, and some claim bound to be curtailed. The old line was marked in conformity with a curve in the range,, and represented an arc of a circle,

For continuation of News, see 4&h page.

while the Surveyor's line is straight, and runs with the supposed course of the lead, hence the confusion. In the absence! of evidence to the contrary, it must be taken for granted that the "Government Surveyor's base-line is the correct one. Henderson was not takon at a disadvantage by the Court, for he brought his action wrongly, and could have been nonsuited, but the case was decided upon its merits. The defendants were in possession of a full claim before Henderson marked off his portion of a claim, consequently after the re-marking he was entitled only to the surplus ground, which was awarded to him. Although the case was dismissed, the verdict was virtually for the defendants, but as a punishment for unlawfully interfering with the pegs of the compiainant's spare ground, and also for marking off too large a claim in the first instance, they were not allowed custs or expenses, which, from the nature of the case, would amount to a considerable sum. — Ed.J