WARDEN’S COURT.

Hauraki Plains Gazette, Volume XXXVIII, Issue 5160, 3 August 1927, Page 3

WARDEN’S COURT.

APPLICATION FOR PROTECTION. POSITION OF N.Z. CROWN MINES. At the Warden’s Court, Paeroa, before Mr F. W. Platts, Warden, the N Z. Crown Mines Co., Ltd., and the Crown Mines S.Q.C. and subsidiary titles, applied for six months’ protection on its claims for the purpose of allowing sufficient time to realise on the assets. Mr E. A. Porrltt appeared for the applicants. An objection to the application was lodged by Mr J. B. Beeche, Waihi, on behalf of Mr H. A. Meagher, miner, Karangahake, on the following grounds : (1) That he was the holder of a miner’s right, dated July 25, 1927; (2) that the applicants had made default in the labour conditions prescribed by the Mining Act; (3) that by reason of the default the special quartz claim was liable to forfeiture; (4) that the applicant company had enjoyed a. lengthy period <f protection and was, on the merits, not entitled to any further period of protection; (5) that the prescribed interval of time had not elapsed between the filing of the said application and the expiration of the last period of protection; (6) thajt since the expiration of the last period of protection the special quartz claim had not been worked and used as required by law; (7) that the applicant company has by its acts qnd conduct manifested an intention to abandon the special quartz claim. In support of the application H. W. Hopkins, attorney for the company, stated that the company was first formed in 190'6 with a capital of £200,000. Th© expenditure had been between £BOO,OOO and £909,000 to date, and there were considerable assets yet to dispose of. In 1910, and again in 1914, the company had been reconstructed and additional capital added each time.

Detailing the operations, witness said that a section of the property had been sold to a Mr Morris for a small sum, and on the recommendation of the Minister of Mines nearly two-thirds of the 250 acres: hejd by the company had been thrown off or sold. Since operations ceased the ground had been opened to tributors, and several parties worked areas. Last yejar tenders were invited for a portion of the property, but Morris had been the only tenderer, and the company had let it go for £7O. The 50 acres remaining to the company represented certain assets, and there was a certain amount of prejudice in throwing off the whole area unless a reasonable offer was forthcoming. A copy of the valuation produced did not represent the true) value, and anyone caring to take the property at valuation would be getting a cheap property. The period was required to elnable the company to realise its assets. It had been hoped to dispose of much of the machinery as a going concern, but such had not been possible. The Crown Mines Co. had contributed a large sum in gold duty towards the benefit of the district. However, it was a case where a mine had come to an end, and there was, nothings left to do but to try and effect salvage on the- plant.

To Mr Beeche witness said the directors had been considering realising on the assets for the past two or three years. Negotiations had been carried on with a ma.chiriery broker, but only a little over £soo' had been offered. The valuation of the plant at £23,000 was not too high for anyone requiring a plant. The company was loath to destroy the ba.ttelry Just for the scrap value of the material. There was some revival in mining, but an effort had been made locally quite recently in Which the Government was asked to purchase the company's plant. A new cross-cut had been done within the past 15 months on the Crown claim. There had never been any difficulty in obtaining protection for machinery, if an offelr of £lOO was received, witness would, recommend it to the directors. The company had about £4OOO invested, but they were getting nothing. In the earlier days of the company’s activities, the shareholders had received about £70,000.

The battery could not be. worked without a fair sum being' expended upon it. The water-races were in fairly good order. There had been no work done on the claim recently, and as soon as the machinery and other plant was disposed of, the company’s operations would probably cease a.t Karangahake. George Norman McGruer, mine manager at Karangahake, for the company stated that some hundreds of feet of trenching, sinking, and surface prospecting had been carried out on the- Crown claim quite recently. Certain cross-cuts had also been driven. Men were regularly employed on the water-races, in his opinion the battery could be put into operation within 48 hours, and be capable of crushing small quantities. The prospecting license was done after the driving. EVIDENCE FOR OBJECTION.

In opening for the objection Mr Beeche stated that the case opened up some very interesting features in that such a case rarely came before a Warden’* Court, although such matters were often referred to by mining men. The Act was never intended to allow large areas of land to be locked up by mining companies. It was also a fact that the Minister of Mines, when granting the last certificate of protection, had stated that it would be the final one allowed the compa.ny. The conditions and provisions of wages paid, employment, and work done could not apply so far as the property was concerned. It was submitted that the company had a very small interest in the property, and appeared to depend largely upon certificates of protection, while it disposed of its plant, and if such periods were continued to be given it was contrary to the interests of mining. Tn the interests of the. public, and also the interests of the objector, Mr Meagher, no further recommsndations should be forwarded to the Minister. No doubt the company had done good work in the* days gone by,

but for some years it had been holding up operations. The present Minister of Mines had stated his disapproval of large; mining companies tying up areas of mining land. H. A. Meagher, the objector to the application for further protection, said that he was opposed on the grounds of it not being in the best interests of those concerned. He and a party of three were working on a claim, and if the Crown Claim of .50 acres was forfeited he would be prepared to take up the claim. He was aware that tributors were at work, but the Crown battery was not suitable for such small parcels of ore. He and his party were familiar with Whe Karangahake mining district, and believed they were on the track of good stuff. In reply to Mr Beeche Mr Porritt referred to certain sections of the Mining Act in support of further protection being recommended, and particularly with reference to the special sites.

The Magistrate! said that after a notable career the company was forced to realise on its assets. The Minister had stated that the granting /of the protection the last time was deemed to be final. He would recommend protection on the subsidiary claims, in view of the difficulty of disposing of the assets, but in face of the Minister’s: decision he was not prepared to recommend the application for further protection on the Crown claim itself.