WARDEN’S COURT.

Hokitika Guardian, 19 January 1928, Page 1

WARDEN’S COURT.

THURSDAY, JANUARY 18th

(Before AVarden Meldrum.)

>S. Hyndinnn (Mr Murdoch), three Special 'claims. Adjourned for completion of survey. .1. Marks (Mr Pilkitigton), prospecting license.—Granted. 11. Newman (Air Pilkington), prospecting license.—Granted. H. Hartke, surrender of residence site.—-Granted. .1. F. Downey, prospecting license.— Granted. A. P. Sharkey lease in mining township. Ross.—Granted. Harold Gardiner, similar lease, Ross. —Granted. H. Ostners, similar lease.—Granted. O. Hahn, residence site, Okarito. —Granted. ItF.iSKRYED JUDGMENT. The Warden gave his reserved judgment on the application of H. C. Newman (.Mr Murdoch) tor a residence site at Wailio. Objection by Forest Service (Air Kitchiiigliam). The AVarden refused the application stating The application is for a license for a residential site comprising one rood oi State Forest land situated near Wailio. An objection lias been lodged bv the* State Forestry Department oil the grounds,— I. That, as the area is in a State Forest AVarden lias no jurisdiction : and 2. That the grant would be contrary to the public interest.

I do not propose to consider the second ground as the case seems to me to be clearly determinable on the question of the Warden's jurisdiction.

Applicant relics on two sections of the Alining Act 1920, which lie contends give the AVarden power to grant a residence site in State Forest Lands. First in Section 114 which empowers the AVarden to grant “ mining privileges ” of any of the following descriptions in respect of unali'enated Crown lands in a Alining District; viz., business site licenses, residence site licenses. and special site licenses; and secondly on Section 22, which states that “ areas set apart under the Forests Act 1921-22 for forest lands shall lie subject to the provisions of the Alining Act 1920 relating to mining on Crown Lands notwithstanding anything to the contrary in Section 24 of the State Forests Act 1921-22.”

Section 24 enacted that State Forest lands should not lie dealt with ” otherwise than in conformity with the State Forests Act.”

The question is whether Section 22 (1) goes far enough to enable the AA'arden to grant a license, for a residence

The question turns on the distinctions between the meaning of the word “ mining ” used in Section 22 (1) and the words “ mining privileges ” used in Section 141. Under Section 4 “ mining ” means “mining operations” or “ mining for gold or any other metal or mineral.”

“Alining privilege” means any license, light, title, or privilege, relating to mining, and includes (inter alia) a timber-cutting right and a license for a business residence or special site, and therefore includes licenses not sini generis with licenses relating to min-

But the term “ mining privilege ” is not used in Section 22 (1). Under that section. State Forest lands are made subject only to the provisions of the -Alining Act which relate to “ mining ” on Crown Lands. Now license for a residence f«

not a license relating to “ mining.” U confers no right, and imposes no duty, upon the licensee to mine the site, but only to reside thereon, and to use and cultivate it as a home (v See 154). This distinction is adopted in Section 144. which provides that “no license for a business residence or special site shall be granted in respect of any site that in the opinion of the Warden is required for “mining purposes,” or if, in the opinion of the Warden, the grant would interfere prejudicially with “mining operations.” 1 1 is clear, therefore, that a license for a residence site does not come within Section 22 (1), and that the Waruen has no jurisdiction to grant one in State Forest land. Costs Cl Is were allowed counsel lor ■objector.