HOCHSTETTER CLAIMS.

Hokitika Guardian, 31 July 1929, Page 3

HOCHSTETTER CLAIMS.

FORFEITURE REFUSER. . . •••**• 'GREY-MOUTH, July 30. Exercising his discretion under the provisions of the Mining Act, and its * amendments, the Warden (Mr W. Meldrum) to-day refused to decrefe the forfWtui'e of the mining'properties' in , the Ahnura district, known as theJ Hochstetter ciaims, but in lieu of forfeiture, he imposed a nominal fine of £lO. The, Act provides for a fine not exceeding £IOO, in cases where it is considered' that the circumstances do not justify forfeiture. The plaintiff in the suit was William Clayton, farmer, of Aliaura, and the defendants were Vivian James itundell Milos, barrister, of Sydney, nnd John Wilson miner, who for the past three or four years'? has. been residing on the property. At the sitting of the''Court on July 2nd. the proceedings were adjourned until to-day in consequence of an application being made to join Wilson as co-defendant, the property having been transferred from miles to Wilson. Mr Dbogan .-stated that’ the plaintiff alleged that the properties had been - unused, unoccupied, and neglected for a continuous period of over twelve months. When the original company, the Lake Hochstetter 'goldfields Ltd., ceased operations, the properties were taken over by the debenture holders, wno were represented by IVfiles, The* rights were protected for 'six or seven years, but no bona fide work had been done, and the protection expired fourteen or fifteen months ago. Plaintiff claimed that that fact brought them under the provisions of the Mining Act and rendered them liable to forfeiture. The' Warden stated he did not think this ; was a case for forfeiture. There \ appeared to be an honest attempt bemade to restart the, claim. A certain amount of encouragement should be given to defendants,, to enable them to bring to fruition wb: l they;,had been trying for a long time to do in the face of adverse circumstances, With the prospect of getting a tailing race to work in connection witfi the ground, ,he thought there was chance of them getting the work going again. They had lost very heavily in the past, and it was notthe 'policy of the Mining Act, tb discourage the introduction of capital for the working of claims which required new capital. It appeared to him, on - v , the evidence that had been given by ■ "‘Wilson that a genuine attempt was being made now to get the thing on . a payable footing. It was the Warden’s duty, in such circumstances, notdiscourage such efforts, but to encourage them. He would therefore inflict a merely : nominal fine of £lO,Court costs and two witnesses’ expense/i were allowed plaintiff, also, £3 Bs solicitor’s feet