PLAINT FOR FORFEITURE

Hauraki Plains Gazette, Volume XXXIII, Issue 4472, 27 September 1922, Page 2

PLAINT FOR FORFEITURE

CASE DISMISSED. COMPANY HEAVILY FINED. The reserved decision in the case brought by John McCombie (Mr Hanna) against the New Zealand Crown Mines, Limited (Mr Porritt), which, was before Warden Salnion at the court last month, was given at the court yesterday, and is as follows: • . . ® “This was a plaint for forfeiture filed by John McCombie, mining engineer, of Auckland. The Court was asked to decree forfeiture in respect of the Earl of Glasgow Special Quartz Claim on the grounds of) failure to comply with working conditions (section 181. c) of the Mining Act, Ih the alternative the Court was asked to find that the claim had been abandoned by operation of law, I may say at once that T am not satisfied, in view of the authority of the Waihi Grand Junction Gold Mining Co. v. Dudson (29 N.Z. Law Report 499), that the Earl of Glasgow claim can be deemed to have been abandoned by operation of law within the meaning of section 185 of the Mining Act, 1908.

There is no doubt that the Company has throughout the many years of its existence —which embraces many years of faithful working—concentrated upon its adjoining claims to the almost entire neglect pf the Earl of Glasgow claim. It might more aptly have been named the Cinderella claim. The authority abpvementioned, however, shows that in the case of contiguous claims held and worked by one company it is permissible for the company to concentrate upon some of the claims to the exclusion of others so long as the labour conditions are observed as regards the total area of the company’s claim as a whole. "Nor am I satisfied on the evidence that the plant and machinery of the Company as it now stands is nbt adapted to the efficient bona fide working pf the claims, bearing in mind the fact that the Company, in pursuance pfan expressed policy, apparently arrived at with the concurrence of the-Mines' Department,' was taking’ steps to throw off part of its claims and was reducing its plant and machinery accordingly. “With, regard to the liability to forfeiture for breach of working conditions. There is no doubt that th 2 Company,has rendered itself liable to forfeiture on this ground in. respect of a period of over one month following upon the date of expiration of the last period of protection, namely, June 6 last. There was also some suggestions that similar lapses on the part of the Company have occurred in similar circumstances in. the past, but with these ,1 am pot ? concerned, because of the proviso to) section 181 which enacts except in certain cases no mining privilege shall be liable to forfeiture for any cause -of action arising" more than six months before the commencement of the suit. It was urged by counsel "for the defendant company that this was a case in which the Court, inf exercise of its discretion under section 184 (d) cf the Mining Act, 1908, should , impose a fine in lieu of decreeing forfeiture.

"Upon consideration of th® leading, cases, namely, Ewing v. Scandinavian Water Race Co., -Lake Hochstetten Goldmining Co. y.. Dohellan, Kingwell v. Biter,a, Wilson v. Tinkers Gold Mining C0.,.1 am of opinion that this is a case in which that discretion may be properly exercised and sWhlld be exercised ih favour of the defendant company, and I propose to inflict a fine.

“The Company should, I think, be assisted in ...its declared policy ,to throw, off the ground which it is not prepared to work, and the labour conditions “ will be strictly enforced as regards those areas which are retained. I have already pointed but, at tlie hearihg, that it was useless for the Company to apply for further protection, and an application for protection which had . been filed was accordingly withdrawn. “I was asked by counsel for the plaintiff to declare the policy of the Court as to whether the Court would encourage a practice of. tieing up mining land in the way in which It was alleged this claim had been held by the defendant, company. It is imposs'ble for the Court to declare any general policy in a case like the present. The authoritative cases show that.the Court in cases involving liability to forfeiture must use its discretion according to the particular circumstances of, each case.

"The defendant, company will be fined £5O, together with costs of suit. The plaintiff has' T think, acted bona fide in bringing these proceedings. He has. moreover,' 'established Kis ease, and he should, I think, be allowed a portion of the fine in terms cf section 184 (sub section d) to cover reasonable expenses in connection with the .case An order will be made that the plaintiff be aPloWed £25 to be paid to him out of the fine, and allowed costs. £7 Is.”