THE Grey River Argus. PUBLISHED DAILY. THURSDAY, JULY, 10,, 1873.

Grey River Argus, Volume XIII, Issue 1539, 10 July 1873, Page 2

THE Grey River Argus. PUBLISHED DAILY. THURSDAY, JULY, 10,, 1873.

The remarks made by his Honor Judge Harvey at the District Court,. Ahaura, with. reference. to the working of the Gold Fields Act, when dismissing the appeal in the case Camellattp v. Henderson, are worthy 'the ' serious' s attention of the framers of the new Gold Fields Act about

to be submitted to the General Assembly during the forthcoming session. His Honor alluded, more particularly to the fourth section of the Amended Act of in which it is laid down that -V where assessors shall have been sum-, moned and shall act on the hearing of any case in ' a Warden's Court, such .assessors shall sit apart from the Warden in like manner as a jury would in an ajction in- the Supreme Court, and the ■jjadgmeut given, . or the, order or decree tiade by the Court,, shall be given or made by- the. Warden and not less than tjvo 'assessors." In; the case before the Court the Warden had in the lower Court dissented from the unanimous finding of the: assessors. : The Judge, when the appeal came before him, held that the verdict' 1 'of;- the Court' below, being a vferdict of the , assessors alone, and not ;oE the Warden and two assessors at. least, was not a judgment within the meaning of the Act, and dismissed the suit, remarking that the law was at fault, and not-the litigants. ' His Honor referred to tHa ; section under consideration as a "|curiosityof legislation," and trusted the , necessity of further amending it would be broughtiunder th'enotice'of the legislature. W,e belieye we are correct in stating that "Amendment" in. the Act of , 1872 was -brought about in 'consequence of a. very pronounced condemnation of the ambigu..oiis meaning of ' the wording of certain cliuses in the; Act of ■; 1866 > relating to assessors in Warden's Courts, delivered by Judge Ward at Greymouth during the \ hearing of , i an- . appeal i from ; the Warden's 'Court at-Ahaura. . -The matter in-dispute was to determine the. , ; pwnership of a mining claim at Duffer ' Creek, and during the hearing of the case there cropped up the question of the position of the Warden, as a constituent in a Court composed of a Warden and assessors. It could not be clearly understood whether the Warden should ihterfereat all with the deliberations of the assessors, but merely take the verdict of the majority and give.effect to lit. Neither could it be definately settled whether in case the j ury should be equally divided the Warden should exercise a casting vote, and thus make the opinion of the majority the verdict. The contingency of the Warden disagreeing with all the assessors was not provided for in the old; Act, for the. words " Warden and assessors" are used throughout its clauses, seeming, to imply that the framers took it for granted \ that a Court composed of a ' Warden and assessors would always be I unanimous in arriving at a conclusion. It ? waß clearly with a view* to remedy this | defect, and without doubt with the intention.of making the Warden absolute, the : fourth sectiont of the new. Act was introduced, but the amendment has been done so * clumsily < that : the proposed object, for good or evil, is entirely frustrated. The Warden certainly has the

power, if lie choose to exercise it, of carrying his point eventually, for, as Judge Harvey remarked, "the Warden can; re-hear and re-hear, until he finds pour assessors who are 'willing to agree VithvsJiun," but it is not probable this course will ever be followed. The adoption of such an obstructive mode of proceedure would work its own cure, for the chief object of the Wardens' Courts— which is, to give facilities for, a prompt and administration of 'the Gold Fields Act, to settle disputes between litigants "on the sppt— would be defeated, and the necessity -for" these Courts would cease to exist. Bu t the Wardens, j udgin g from the impartial, and, on the whole, satisfactory manner.* in which they administer the law, are not by any means likely, to place obstacles in the way of a settlement of disputes between residents on the Gold Fields. On the contrary, there is a far greater probability that those officera are well aware they would be furthering the best interests of those over^ whom they have control, by adopting the policy .of noD-interventibn as fair 'as possible, and interfering only when interference may be beneficial. * For this reason the rest of the Wardens^ there, is every probability, will coincide ; .with the opinion of Mr Warden ,' Whitef oord, who has stated publicly that he would be .only too glad to leave the decision on questions of fact to assessors, if -the law allowed." Still, cases may arise where the Warden, as long as he has the power of interfering,' is bound in justiceto himself to protest against what he considers an erroneous finding, of the jury, and this case of Camellatto v. Henderson was one of this description. The Warden had, at the previous sitting of the Gourt, in the same case and on the same evidence, given a .verdict directly opposite in its effects to the one given by : the assessors, so that he .could not,; without stultifying himself as judge of the Court, allow 'the finding, to go without protest. This disagreement between the Warden and- the jury was fatal to the appeal, so that after all the trouble, anxiety, and expense iricurredi: the matter in dispute is left just where it commenced; To prevent a repetition of these proceedings a further amendment/ of the law is necessary, and the direction the improve^ ment ought to take is already indicated. The jury should be composed of three or five assessors instead of four, as at present, or of any even number. By, this means' the possibility of. a dead-lock would be avoided, provided the whole of the jury were compelled to vote. After the law bearing upon the case in hand had been pointed out and explained by the Warden, he should be debarred from further interference, for the assessors, as practical men, may be entrusted to arrive at an intelligent and correct conclusion as to the facts. The verdict of a majority of the jury should be the judgment of the Court irrespective of the opinion formed on the case by the Warden at any previous hearing. By following this course every rehearing of a suit before the Warden and assessors would be in the nature of an appeal frpm the, Warden's decision as given when sitting alone ; the responsibility: of disentangling intricate questions of fact would be removed from the Warden, and the onus placed upon the jury, who, it is to be presumed, would generally have a more intimate practical acquaintance with the circumstances of most mining disputes. , And, what is of greatest importance, an alteration of this kind would go a long way towards discouraging litigation, for very few suitors, with the limited means those living oh the gold fields have at their disposal, would attempt an appeal to a higher Court a*jainßt a decision arrived at by such means. ■>:■■■'■ i "~^^— ™— — — — —