MINING APPLICATIONS.

Kumara Times, Issue 915, 5 September 1879, Page 2

MINING APPLICATIONS.

[to THE KIOTO].:.] Sai, — Most of your readers are aware, that several applications have lately been heard at the Wardens Court here, fur double areas of ground, but few are aware of the manner in which those nn;>lie.itioris have hwobjected to. First Barroivman and parly applied for - d...,,!,],,, aica of gr.iuiid, and it way ohj.'ou.J to. thai: rho <?ron>;d wo aid \-;\\- [., ;'. :: > .■■.•..,■'!;,.., ,".7

principal objectors have differed out and left.. Another objection was that the mining timber would be monopolised, while the fact was. tlnre was not one man's ground with the timber on it. Another grave objection with that there would be no room for tailings if the area was grau'ted, while at that time mot a single individual ever asked for the pegs, and was it likely they could know where "they where, as several of the party ciwld hardly 'find them that owned them.. The Warden said, that in the face of such a number of names he could not grant the application, but suggested that-the applicants should apply for a machine site, as they alleged that some of the '.ground applied for, was for the er'rection of machinery, ft Is necessary in all such, applications to give the number of square feet applied for which .in t!«is case was 10,000 square feet or 0116 man's ground. To this application there was a large number 6f objections; as the majority of those signing the objection, were under the impnssioil that 10,000 square feet, was ten men's ground and they thought it was just another way of getting »a double -urea'. Before the case came on howeVe.-, it leaked out that 10,000 square feet was not ten men's ground, and of course' the objectors subsided gracefully, not so however one noisey objector who exulted over the fact that though the Warden had given one nlin's ground, they had kept the parties out of getting 10,000 square feet. Another case came on on Thursday, last and the injustice done the applicants was even more glaiing than even either of the former cases. I refer to the application of Marshall and .party. The objectors numbered 55 in all, and were led to the Court in single file by a gallant youth named Bigg* (I mead their names were taken there in single tile), and in a gushing speech, which the Court listened, to with the greatest of patience, he stated that he was a fair representative of those who had signed the objection, and that father was working in a claim close by and r gettiug 3|- dwts. to the load, while he was making ,£1 per day,;and that he had previously sold out ".of a claim that yielded 1|- ozs. to the load—forgetting to inform the Bench that all that soil of stuff was worked out 18 months ago— and since then his old mates were making what is <*ne.raliy known as flash tucker. I no| come to the funny part of it. Somef of the applicant* feeling curious onf ihe subject " went down to the Warden's Office the day following the Court, day, and with ti'ft» assistance of the clerk, went over the miner's right book, and found" that out of 55 objectors, 25 tiad no miners right in force at the present time. Of cduT-se to the uninitiated ijt seems very conclusive when the Warden lifts the lis-, of objectors names, and smiling bland v in your face, asks what can he do iii the face of all these objections. Eve v objector should give besides his name the number of his miners right, and every objector appearing should be p to upon his oath, or where is this sort ■■>; tyranny to end. I may also state 11 is in the last case, in my opinion, t'n objections should not have been allow •■•!, as they were not within the jjvescrib i time.—t am, etc., . , Miner.