MINING APPEALS

Hokitika Guardian, 17 August 1932, Page 8

MINING APPEALS

DECISION OF JUSTICE ADAMS MORRIS v. CON, GOLDFIELDS

The reserved judgment of Mr Justice iAdams, in the two appeals brought by William James Morris, of 'Reefton, against • • the Consolidated Goldfie ds Company of New Zealand, Lim Cd, # at •.GreymoUth’on June il4 and 15 r wasl read by the Registrar. 'first appeal was from the re ;£u§ai‘°f 'the Warden to grant to the appellant, William James. Morris, a special claim. The respondent ; Company had objected td.'the granting' ; of the .application upon the ground ■that appellant was not a bona fide ap-f plicaSit, qnd had applied for -the claim not with ithie intention .of working it, but for speculative purposes, only.. , ’ %The -respondent Company -contended that \ho appellant already held several -claims which he was. not work-, i»g, land that it wa® against public interest that mining lands-be tied up for merely speculative purposes. ... His- Honor, in the coarse -of ljiijudgiiient, -stated that all mining for gold., js. Speculative, and. .as the "intention'of. the legislature may be .said, to entourage .-such enterprise .‘■and speculation ;—it, could not be held that appellant’s nets were against the ■ public interest.. The appeal was -allowed, the appellant’s . applicatiofi for the -specia : fiuaitz 1 ' .elaim ,’being granted subject to the cOnd'it|on that appellant shall -rot carry co'nl/miiiiiri; ppOrat’on.s nearer than 150 ifeet below the surfaoe of the speciaj/. gite, of the rejpandent; Company.!; ijXppelliht was allowed as. costs the sum.Ajof. £5. 15s and Sisbursemente/'/ 'i t • • o

i- mente.-ri ' j • -‘f ;;y> 1 The ; second, appeal was in respect ie of J./claim .made 'by the appelant y against' t(he. ; . respondent Company for j, £1250^;.>1 fdr... trespass'-iev in'./ nemoviirg d structural t . and gold-bearihg h material firbni land’’ held by appellant if . under-, ordinary prospecting, license. .•l{r igmd : ‘«ndw his application.,, , for ■ the r : Special j claim referred to in' the first f ; appeal. The. structural - impi < ovement& | and -the a ; uriferoU*y material .upon . t-hc. land.,' haid, formeirly been the property of tbie. . ;KeOp-if--Park.c Company (in -.: liquidation), whose mining titles 'had' e been,, cancelled prior to* ‘the. appellant L; taking wpj. his,.pi-ospectihg license, . and. had.jbe^n.;sole!' after the grant of ap- : - pelh'int® .prospecting license ’ by the liquidator •of £he,, Keep-It-Dark Com- ’ , panyi. to‘the respondent Company. 3 ' His 'Honor .stated thaty the - appeal ; i raisedi thfe; interesting question as qto j whether ;ithe:.auljferous/substances re- ’ mbved.from the land held by appe'knt [.« under,.,the prospecting. license, which i-i land', was (formerly the battery site of’ i , the ;Keep-It-Dark Company, was of ;,. the - nature of reai property and part ■ | of; the.j'land vested in the Crown or ■ -whether -.;su.eh T .,guriferous substances uk were-a chattel,,.,, ,r .. ; 1 After,-revies\jihg at length tflie vari- •; ous • authorities, lt quoted by counsel,. hi? Honor held that the. auriferous eub L l ; stances had. been, . ppnverted into per- * spijaJ ‘property,; or -chattel by the" ■ nq-uing operations formerly carried on 4 by. the Keep-Jt-Dark Company and that • 'neither the .appellant’s prospecting license, nor fcis application for a c.laim ?(( ;y<!,sted. ;ip him.; a "legal . .right; to substances or 1 the structural _ improvements. The apr peal, was,, dismissed r.;wihh ' -costs- .. £52 •/ IQs’ and d'sbvirsements and witnesses’ 1 expenses to he fixed by the Registrar. 1 «;At the heading of bt-t-h appeals, Mr 1 - -If. Patteißon, ~, . t«be appel- ' lapt, . Jaineky., Morris, ‘ Messrs J. W. Hannan apd ;>L. E. ; Morgan, the respondent. uCompa Oy.; /, , .... ... i