MINING CASE.

Hauraki Plains Gazette, Volume XXXIII, Issue 4458, 25 August 1922, Page 2

MINING CASE.

CLAIM FOR FORFEITURE, LENGTHY PROCEEDINGS. DECISION RESERVED. A mining of more than usual interest was heard at the Paeroa Courthouse yesterday, before the Warden, Mr J. H. Salmon. The proceedings took the form of an application for forfeiture by John McCombie against the N.Z, Crown. Mines, Ltd., the property involved being what is known as the Earl- of Glasgow.

Mr Hanna appeared for Mr McCombie and Mr Porritt for the company.

Mr Porritt said the case involved the whole of the Crown property with the exception of portions on which there were certain workings. There were 117 acres 1 rood 10 perches which were proposed to be surrendered. They were retaining 51 acres, and 27 acres, of the Earl of Glasgow.

His Worship considered the claim for forfeiture should come first. Mr Hanna said the claim for forfeiture was laid on the grounds that the claim had been entirely unused during a period and had beep abandoned. There may be workings, but they must be efficient bona-fide workings at the time of laying piaint. The land would be liable to a forfeiture if it was not occupied or used for proper purpose for a stated period. He would show there was no work from June 6, 1922, to June 27, 1922, and on and until July IJL, 1922, which took them over the month in case of forfeiture and over the specified time in the case of abandonment. It was a financial impracticability to work the Earl of Glagpw. The company had also treated the matter lightly and with neglect. Last Monday they had started, and did some work. Ho made a request that in the event of His Worship finding against forfeiture a substantial amount must be allowed to plaintiff, who was a bonafide miner and financially able to work the claim. HISTORY OF THE MINE.

John McCombie, mining engineer, of Auckland, said he had known the Earl of Glasgow property in 1875, 47 years ago. He had been one oE the miners who had rushed the place. He returned again in 1881 and took up the mine now known as the Talisman. Ip the year 1882 the Rose, Diamond, and Adeline mines were all separate mines, and now embrace! the area known as Earl of Glasgow. He was a shareholder in the Diamond and Adeline, and for a period of two years he had paid them weekly visits. The place in whie> these mines were located contained more or less gold and silver, and the Adeline turped out £5OOO worth of bullion from the surface workings. It gradually diminished as depth, was obtained. At 200 ft values almost petered clean out. A portion of the " Crown- mines were let on tribute. The tributors cleaned up all the available ore, and then they “threw up the sponge.” Describing the present conditions, he stated that as far as he knew without extensive development there was nothing in sight. He was general manager of . the Crown Mines for four years ending July, 1914. The Crown M’nes Company did no work on this property during his time. There was a re-formation bf the company, and he was asked by the London Board to prepare a .report. His report was headed “development recommendations.” He had recommended very strongly the development of this property. He had pointed out that it was .worth the company’s while to develop this section. The result was that they drove a crosscut 100 feat and then received instructions from London to stop. He had a year later made another report urging this development. His Worship asked if this evidence was relevant, Mr Hanna .pointed out that the workings on the mine were not sufficient to develop the mine. There were workings, but they were not efficient.

Witness continued that some of. the upper workings had trenched across the Earl of Glasgow- Tihe last work done on the Waitawheta levels in his time was number 5 A level. That was prospecting, taking up levels, and crosscutting. The blocks wre taken out. These were usually left in to keep the levels from .collapsing if intended to retain use of the levels; They drove the crosscut 100 feet to the Earl of Glasgow level. One level reached the Earl of Glasgow under the trig station. A 1 crosscut was run from the Waitawheta level underneath the trig station, and it would pass through a portion of the Earl of Glasgow property. MINE’S BAD CONDITION. When he took charge of the mine it was practically played out so far as the old workings were concerned. By the old workings he meant those old working’s on the Crown and Welcome lodes, bothi above and below. He took out blocks which had been left in by the previous manager, and the result was that the mine must be in a very bad condition. In other words the levels must be fairly well collapsed. From the Waitawheta River to the Earl of Glasgow the trucking would be getting pn for, 3000 feet. It was expensive to truck, the cost being prohibitive. None of the lower workings ran into the Earl bf Glasgow. Some of the upper levels did. The lower levels to-day would, he thought, be all swamped out with water. The condition according to the report in regard to water was that it was very badly flooded and the pumps had broken down. The water to-day was up close to the Waitawheta level. They,were pumping 40,000 gallons ap 'hour in the Talisman and Crown, which were connected. About 400,000.000 gallons would accumulate in a year. To work the Earl of Glasgow from the low levels they -would have to unwater. It woud not be practicable tp Work the Earl of Glasgow from the Waitawheta levels. They would h|ave to confine developments within the boundary of the claim to do it systematically and cheaply,

"STONE QUARRY COMPANY/’ The reports he had put in stated that part Of the batteries had been dismantled and sold. The Crown Company had not done anything tu develop the Earl of Glasgow during his time, and as far as he knew for the past nine years. He had been over the property a week ago, and saw no indications of recent work. He .would say the company had spent money during the past few ye,ars_ which could be better spent elsewhere. For instance, they drove a crosscut on number 4 Talisman level for a distance of 500 feet from the original Crown Mine. That crosscut must have cost at least £l2OO. No discoveries were made on this crosscut. It was a foregone conclusion before the start that no discoveries could be made There was no corresponding work dope on the Earl of Glasgow. He had always favoured the Earl of Glasgow. He would not give his case away to state what works he would dp if the Earl ’:>t Glasgow were granted him. He really intended to work it, and he had the capital behind him to dp so. There had been a good deal of controversy between the New Zealand and London shareholders. He had. been one of the New Zealand “mugs ’ who had paid up a 2s call. The proposed liquidation of the company had been vetoed in England. During the past year it appears to him that the company had drifted into a stone quarry company. He had seen co other work, except the dismantling of the batteries pn the Crown iMno, and nothing on the Earl pf Glasgow. There was no portable property and no buildings on the Earl of Glasgow. He had thought pf acquiring this property a year, ago. The company had allowed the lease to lapse. Think-i ing there would be no protection he made inquiries, with .a view to obtaining the ground. If the company surrendered that portion of tne Crown Mines which contained the entrance to the whole of its workings it would render it impossible to work the Earl of 1 Glasgow mines from these workings.

TURN IN THE TIDE. The company had stated in a report that it had paid £113,916 in wages in the past seven years. This was not .correct. Work had not been carried put fully during a single month and for two-months intervals at a time, and had not been fully manned. He was conversant with the Hauraki mining district from Coromandel to Te Aroha, and thousands of acres pf, land were held up with unwprked licensed headings. The Talisman property area had been taken up by private individuals. According to the last annual report the company had no intentions pf seriously working the claim,; and allowing this state of affairs to continue was npt in the public interests. There was a turn in the tide of mining, and if the central portion of that area was locked up, .what chance had prospectors of getting in ? He- kne.w of no natural contingency to prevent the working of this property. It was a straightforward mining proposition. The only excuse fbr not working may be absence of capital. To Mr Porritt: Witness said he wanted the ground for mining purposes; Since 1914 nothing had transpired .to prevent his views of working the mine to take effect according to bis report of 1914. He had merely responded to the request of the London Board of Directors to report on the property, and it was not till he had been there for three years that he had been asked to make suggestions. He had made no suggestions previously pn bis own accord because the company did not have the capital. At the time when he did make the suggestions the company was being re-formed, apd fresn capital was available. Mr Porritt: When an owner owns two adjoining mines the owner could work it as one contiguous area ? Witness: Yes, provided there were sufficient men employed on one acre and .to hold 10.

Witness further said he had done no work on the Earl of Glasgow. He admitted he exploited the reef leading to the Glasgow property, but no: any on the property. His works were bona-fide works. There were bonafide works pn the claim, but not on the reef system. When the company’s capital had run short he had instruction on three different occasions to reduce the staff. He had dismissed 40 men at the end of one mbnth. The Earl of Glasgow was not a part of the Crown Mines. Mr McGruer did not follow witness’ policy. .

To Mr Hanna: Witness said Waitawheta level would rcqu.ie a staff of men continuously to keep it open. The works on the Earl of Glasgow were efficient works at the time, but were not efficient now. DISMANTLING OPERATIONS. Robert Mark Aitken, mining ’engineer, Auckland, said he bad considerable experience in mining engineering. He was manager of the Waihi Gold Extraction Company: He did not know anything about the dismantling of the Crown batteries, but he knew there was a dismantling going bn. He thought there were 20 head of stamps there at present. The Crown battery from what he saw was in the course of being dismantled ; in fact, most of it had beep dismantled. They had taken out stamps and tanks. He did not think they could treat the ore from Karangahake in the Crown battery. The Karangahake ore required concentration, and he knew bf np concentrators at the Crown battery how. The Crown battery was not .an efficient plant at present. He spent a great deal of time at Karangahake, and he had seen no indication. of the Grown working with the exception of men taking away pieces of machinery. Mr Porritt: .If I said 400,000 .tons of ore had been treated there, would you still say the Crown plant was not efficient ? Witness: Yes. He would not like any of his ore treated there. A MINER’S EVIDENCE. John O’Bryney, miner,. Karangar hake, was conversant with the mining operations there, and bad worked in the Grown Mines. The Waitawheta level conditions when he left xero

bad It was seven years since he had' bees in there. He thought the conditions would be bad now. He had known the Earl of Glasgow for eight or nine years. He was a tnbutor three and a half or four, years ago, but had done no good. No work of a substantial nature had been done in the CrowA Mines for the past three years,- He had never seen more than two men working. Two men were not sufficient to work, the mine. A drive on the Earl o,f Glasgow had lost for twenty years and been picked up about four years ago. To Mr Porritt: Witness said the mines were always open to tributors. THE COMPANY’S ATTORNEY. Herbert William Hopkins, attorney for N.Z. Crown Mines, said he had received certain communications from the Mines Department a year ago. Witness had pointed out to the Department that he as attorney had not the power to surrender. Mr R. A. Williams, mining engineer, had been taken over the property tp see what he would Recommend. A subsidy of £2OOO had been applied for for the Earl of Glasgow, but was not granted. During the past year witness had been preparing for the -application toy surrender. It did not appear that the company would require 60 stamps, owing to the decreasing supply, .and they now maintained 20 stamps as being sufficent for what would come along. He admitted the dismantling of some, of the plant. During a period the company had carried on continuous operations till 1919, except two years fallowing Mr, McCombie’s departure, w.hen the company lacked funds. The funds were built up from sale of! plant They had done no work Crom the middle of 1916 to the middle of 1918. The total capital. expenditure would not be less than £850,000. The company was £200,000 behind, of which £70,000 was paid to the vendors. The value of the plant must have been £250,000, and to lieplace the plant now it would copt £150,000. From 1910 to 1916 the company was very busy. In 1910 the company was reconstructed,. The battery started and crushed steadily for-four years. A good deal of development work was done. When Mr McComble' took dharge in 1910 his recommendations were to combine crushing and open up the Hauraki block. Towards the latter part of his term he had recommended other work, of which nothing had been done. The funds of the company were then down to about' £6OOO, and later they came down to £2OOO. The company put in nine miles of drives and crosscuts in the mine, and put in plant which hal crushed 400,000 tons of pre. One portion was now worked out, and. they must look to the other end. The taking away of the Earl of Glasgow would take away the company’s future working area. The mine was always Open to tributors. Thouga the company had protection, the ground had never been locked up from working. There was a total of 2000 feet of drives in the Earl of Glasgow. A crosscut of 500 feet went right across the Earl of Glasgow. A number of tributors had been working for the past six years. He considered the workings in their own t’me were bona-fide and efficient, and now there were efficient and bona-fide workings on the place. The company had spent £ISOO a year in the upkeep of its plant. If a person came along with a reasonable offer the company, he thought, would accept it, but it had not been a policy Of the company to abandon it. , - Witness, in reply to Mr Hanna, said that in July, 1915, the company hhd received ..partial protection. Or,ush r . ing had been suspended in 1914. after which they were trying to mine in deep level, trying to pick up the same run of ore as in the Talisman. Continuing, .witness^said.Jhe-Waihi CompW"at present was having all it could do to make both ends meet. This was not the time to go in for extensive operations. By' the time the company had built up its funds there may be better conditions. Afte.’ running for 26 years the company was somewhat out of breath and it .wanted something to raise the wind. If the company got a reasonable proposal it may consider disposing of the property. The company had sold a portion of the steam plant, but not the electrical plant. The battery was efficient. He would be prepared to put the plant in order within three days and crush and.,treat 50 tons of ore. He had made no easements over the Waitawheta level. The company did not want the easements at the present time. His company had spent about £I2OO a year on wages. Quarrying on the property had been the company's main source of revenue far the past few years. George Norman McGruer, mine manager, N.Z, Crown Mines, said he had been living in that locality since ■IBB2. : He pad been in .the mine continuously for -the last 40 years, the last 26 years of .which was with the present compapy. . He knew the mines well. Levels had been driven through the property, parts of the levels being in the Glasgow property. That property had been worked by the Crown Mines as one contiguous area. The work on the 'Earl of Glasgow had been bona-fide and efficient. Some months ago the Rose crosscut was cleaned put. The company’s plant, was being kept in order, ready to start work when he got authority. The new battery had not been dismantled, and was ready to work. There had been a number of tributors working on the property for the past few years. Duing the protection no tributing had taken pla.ee but. work had beep done on the ground. A 20-stamp plant was sufficient for the company’s requirements

at present. In reply to Mr Hanna, witness ■said that the workings were efficient at the time put in, but were not efficient now, as they were flooded. COUNSEL’S ADDRESSES.

Mr Porritt said there were two grounds In the plaint for forfeiture. One was that it had become abandoned by operation of, law. If His Worship was satisfied there was bona-fide wonk done on the claim, section 18u B. did not apply. There was clear evidence that there was bona-fide work prior to the proceedings for the efficient working of) th© mine. On

the question of abandonment he said it was laid down in the Victorian mining law, on which the New Zealand Mining Act was based, that clear evidence must, be given of abandonnient, while the smallest evidence of ownership or possession was sufficient. Under the Mining Act two adjoining properties under the same ownership could be worked as one property. In a previous case at Waihi it had been found that a company had rightly and properly been working its two properties as one mine. His was a company which had carried on operations for, 26 years and spent a lot of capital, and like all other mining companies had its periods of depression. Npw an attempt was being made to take away the only piece of, ground left for the company to operate on. The present plaintiff w,as for three and a half to four years manager of the company, and it was three years before he had Considered anything was required to develop the claim. There was something mprje in the case than to have a piece of land thrown open in the public interests.

His Worship asked Mr Porritt if the application for protection could stand.

Mr Porritt said at first he was going to ask for a reduced number of men, but he thought it best to ask for a fresh application.

His Worship: Then in that case you ought to withdraw your application for protection. Mr Porritt: I don’t propose to ask for protection. Mr Hanna said the Earl of Glasgow was at the extreme end of the property, and Mr McCombie had advised the company to' explore that ebuntrv. No .work was done ; in fact when Mr McCombie left the company ceased crushing operations. The company had done practically no work during the past nine years. It was not seeking gold. It was admitted that part of the shafts were full of water and the levels were useless. Yet it 'had' been endeavoured to maintain that' they were bona-fide workings. Some work was done on the Rose crosscut about three years ago to clean it out. Work had recently been started to save the forfeiture due to it. If the Crown Company really thought their future operations depended on the Earl of Glasgow their actions did not show it. The company wished so hold on to the claim at the country’s and public’s expense until ic was convenient' for the company to find the cash. The company had done nothing, yet it had the cheek to say its future depended on that property. There had been a systematic: practice of applying for protection, The reasons fpr applying for protection, 'he alleged, were not correct. In the last report of .the company there was not the slightest suggestion of proposed mining operations. The 'company w,as not likely to explore the field again until the matter was put before a general meeting. Dealing with the question of abandonment, there was the fact of the non-lusing for over nine years. It was admitted that there were no buildings or machinery. The company had shown no intention to wonk any of it. The whole position with regard to the company was one to hold on and to use the law to enable it to hold on. It cbiVd not be suggested that the work done on the very low levels was not done with a great rapidity to uphold operations. He repeated the importance of the mining industry to the district, and to .the country as a whole. Most of the successful mines had made small beginnings. Some companies were holding areas they did not intend to work. The Hauraki district bristled with unworked holdings. The position is fairly analogous to the large landholder adding to* his area and not profitably working a half of it. whereas if closer settled it would produce probably fourfold his production; In the case of the landholder the Government discourages him by graduated land tax, and with regard to the mining companies he maintained it was .the duty of the Warden to make it unsafe for companies to hold up large areas without actively working them, or, as is stated in the Australian case of Clark v. Wrigley, "working its bther land with a ’decided intention to mine the claim ip question and with as great rapidity as to result as working the claim itself might reasonably have.” It was quite clear people were willing to take up this land if only it were opened up. There were no special circumstances in tjie case, and it was not , purely a lapse in putting in application fpr protection. He thought to call it a habit would be better. It was not the case fpr a fine, but a forfeiture. A policy of the district, was in his Worship’s hands. He urged on a decree of forfeiture, and that his client be the first applicant. Decision was reserved.