SUPREME COURT

Hokitika Guardian, 13 September 1932, Page 2

SUPREME COURT

A MINING APPEAL,

>' SOUTH WESTLAND CASE,

< ‘ !At the Supreme Court at Greymouth bn ,Saturday morning, His Honour, Mr .Justice (Blair, heard an appeal regarding a . mining oaSe in far South .Westland. -v!;' ,

The appeUant

farmer of Arahurla POr J. A. Murdoch)

and the respondent, Thoma?,. Clarence Gill, of Hokitika (Mr J. W^Hannan).

The appeal \yas from adecision of the fe Warden, Melditfpa.'. s'■ Mr -Murdoch. said: appellant • iWd a miner’s right? “Gill was the V holder of a ;.pro?jpectißg^.'license over f 200 acres on| the nortlte-side'of ; the ' Haast River. 'He had, said counsel, . left this area entirely unused, unoccupied and neglected for a period ’ of,! six months. He had mlade default over a continuous period of more than sixty .days,' in, performance of i the conditions attached to the license, i 'Gill held 300 acres south of the Haast and. 2QQ .acres north of the Haast. v Grill had . sunk .32 bores. on the most southerly block, between October 1 and the date of the suit. Respondent had admitted in the Warden’s Court at Hokitika that .alll he did between October, 1 and May 18 was to wash a few dishes on the surface one afternoon. During that .period he lived on the south side, of the Haast, confining his operations to the areas held there, The licenses were issued for twelve months only, the conditions providing. for the vigorous and continuous conduct of /prospecting. It was the diuty of the holder not only vigorously to operate, hut to take up ' at; the end of twelve months his occupation on the lairea. The mere washing of dish prospects was. not complying with the act. Another person, being the holder of a license, - had in such circumstances, the right to apply to the Court for a license over the land., The putting down of 32 bores was not an answer to a -suit for cancellation. Respondent hold 500 acres ‘ in five different titles. Each area was separated by a small margin,; but the three south areas were separated from

the north by the Haast River, which , was 80 chains across. It could not be held that they were contigious lands. Appellant’s contention w.as that, when a non-compliance with conditions w,as proved, he would be entitled to either cancellation, or, with special circumstances, the Warden might impose a fine in lieu of forfeiture. The 500 acres extended over a distance of four miles, and prospecting on one of the areas was not a compliance with the act. The sections of th© Act, relating to contigious. areas were not applicable in this case,- Appellant had enquired at the Hokitika Court, and. on being. informed that np,^license. was held over the Land, he wept and marked it out. He did not then know Gill was the holder of the urea.

David Bishop Jellie, farmer, of Arahura, the plaintiff, .said he bell'd a miner’s right. He made a search in the Warden’s Court at Hokitika, and the. assistant clerk, on being asked if there were any titles registered north of the Haast beach, advised that there were none. Witness proceeded overland to South Westland, 140 miles. When hie got to the Haast, he marked out a claim, a prospecting license for himself. Subsequently bet found out Gill had .had a prospecting license made out! That was about four days after he had pegged out. He examined the surface of the area, hut could not find 'any signs, of workings. He knew Gill had artas on the Sardine Terrace, 18 or 20 miles away. Gill admitted working five hours with the dish oti'a day, on the area, between October 1, 1981 to May B,' 1932. About six days after in Hokitika, they met Saunders, but found out he was associated with Gill. As far as witness knew, the ground had n °t been Worked since the hearing at Hokitika. He had capital to work the area and would do so as .soon a." the case was over if he was successful. To Mr Hannan: Witness" had an applLioatoin for a special claim over the area. He had a boring machine waiting and intended then to dredge the land. Witness bandied into' Court the name of a firm with whom negotiations were in progress, stating it would rest, with that Ooy., us to. whether' the area! would be dredged, .Wit-ness-met Mr Saunders in Hokitika and

admitted that negotiations with him amounted to such that if he was offered £IOO he would withdraw. Power could be generated near the claim. - v

lb Mr Murdoch: There was another 100 acres, which Gill did not object to liis holding. There were 70 chains of Crown lands between the Haast River land this area. It was 210 acres in addition to the 200 acres. An American dredging area down there would .be the only area that was bigger than the 410 acres. Vivian Joseph Rbbinson, miner, Anahura, said he was a son-in-law of Jellie. Witness went with Jellie to search for any titles at the Warden’s Court at Hokitika. The clerk told Jellie there were no rights held to the north of the Haast. For the respondent, Mr Hannan said that Gill was the'; representative of a syndicate of Wellington business men. He negged out five acres to see if it would warrant tlie erection of a dredge. They were not taken up with the idea of floating a company, the syndicate being prepared to work the land. GiM commenced boring on the more southerly side of the area, with the intention of taking them in a line from south to north, and £IOOO had been spent on .prospecting operations up tilll the time of the suit. The system followed had been adopted in the district for several days past. A 75 acre claim In the old days was considered ample for a prospecting license but with modern Machinery, as much as 1000 acres were being taker up, but the areas had tobe taken up in Lots of 100 acres each. The only condition of prospecting license was that the prospecting be carried out to the satisfaction of the Warden, who granted the license. Tins area had been prospected to the satisfaction of the Warden, Mr Meldrum, who granted the license. If he said he, was satisfied, that would be the end of the matter. That question, however, counsel would d'dal with in written argument.

Gordon Bertram Saunders, said he was secretary of the South Westland Mining and Prospecting Syndicate. Hill wias sent to South Westland in September of last year with instructions to take up the five areas’ on the Haast River, to see, whether they warranted a dredge. Continuous water, capable of floating a. dredge, lay between the areas. The syndicate' had the capital to place a dredge there and £1047 2s 2d had been already spent in relation to the Haast area. The system of prospecting was for boring. The reason a six-inch pipe, had not been used, was that it would involve the purchase of a machine costing £SOO. Mining authorities recommended a six-inch, pipe, but . a four-inch wlais permissablle. Tlie country was difficult and expensive to bore, as a large area was covered by swamp, and timber. The, only way of prospecting portion of the area was by the, pseof pontoons. Actually 17 boring holes had been put diown, but a greater number of holes had been used In pros* peotllng\ Witness loft Hokitika on May'lß, . and took over charge of operations, The district was more, or less isolated, the steamer calling only once every two months, and the freight from Hokitika was £3 10s per ton. The plant was landed at the south end, and obviously that was the place to commence 'boring. No large company would take up less than 800 acres of such land. A machine shop would require to be established, for repairs and maintenance. Rack track 'offered the only communication with the Haast. He had never seen more than one boring plant going on in tlie one locality. The cost to prospect the five arelas simultaneously would be absurd.

To Mr Murdoch: They had not taken up the intermediate 1 ground in the meantime and did not know whether the appellant had. . Witness would swear to their being 17 bore holes in the areas. Witness had never applied to have protected the areas not being worked, as thle matter was then in Gill’s hands.