WARDEN’S COURT.

Kumara Times, Issue 2835, 2 November 1885, Page 2

WARDEN’S COURT.

Friday, October 30. [Before J. Giles, Esq., Warden, and four Assessors.] ALLEGED DAMAGE TO TAILINGS-SITE AND MINING PROPERTY. Augustine Sellars, David Seat or, James Tait, James Christie, Peter Petersen, complainants ; James Dand, Manager of the Kumara Sludge channel, on behalf of her Majesty the Queen, defendant. The complainants say—--Ist, That tiiey are gold-miners, holding certain claims, and are the registered owners of a certain special site at the south bank of the Teremakau River, and held under certificate No. 11991, dated the 16th October, 1880. 2nd, That the defendant, or his predecessors in office acting as such, Manager of the Kumara Sludge-channel, did at divers times between the Ist day of July, 1884, and the 15th day of October, 1885, deposit, or cause to be deposited, upon the said special site of the complainants, earth, stones, gravel, tailings and other substances, whereby the said complainants were deprived of the use of certain portions of the said tailings-site and prevented from carrying on their business as miners. 3. And, as a second count, the complainants say that the said defendant, or his predecessor in office, acting as such Manager of the Kuraara Sludgechannel, as aforesaid, did, at divers times, as aforesaid, damage, destroy or otherwise interfere with the sluiceboxes of the complainants erected or used by them on such special site; and by such destruction and damage did destroy the chain of sluice-boxes used by the complainants in their business as miners, as aforesaid, whereby the complainants lost several sluice-boxes, and were hindered in their business and suffered loss of time and money, and are and will be prevented from working out their respective claims. 4. And, as a third count, the plaintiffs say that the defendant, or his predecessor in office as aforesaid, did, at the times before-mentioned, damage, destroy, and otherwise interfere with the sluice-boxes of the complainants, erected and used by them in connection with their said claims and special site, and situate outside the boundaries of the said special site ; whereby the complainants lost several sluice-boxes and were hindered in their business and suffered loss of time and money, and have been and will be prevented from working their said claims. Wherefore, the complainants claim from the defendant on the first, second, and third counts the -sum of £BOO damages. On the application of the complainants to have the case tried by assessors, the following gentlemen, having been summoned, answered to their names as assessors :—Messrs Thomas Devaney, Robert Anderson, Alfred Giddens, David Dixon, Win. Pollock, Bernard M'llveney, Thomas Davidson, John Reynolds, The law requiring that this number be reduced to four, by the complainants and defendants striking off two each : Messrs Devaney and MTlveney were relieved at the instance of complainants, and Anderson and Dixon by the defendant. Thomas Davidson, as foreman, John Reynolds, William Pollock, and Alfred Giddens were then sworn in as assessors. Mr Jones addressed the Court and the Assessors, after which the Warden adjourned the Court for the purpose of visiting the scene of the alleged damage. On the Court and assessors resuming, at 12.40 p.m., the evidence of Harry James Wylde was taken, as follows ; lama surveyor, and have prepared a plan of the special site now produced. The lines on the plan dotted in pink represent ground filled in and boxes washed away, as represented to me. I can say that injury was caused by discharge from sludge-channel branch No. 1. I made the survey on the 25th June last. The deposit of tailings from sludge-channel No. 1 would militate against the property of defendants. The discharge of tailings from complainants’ claim at the point disputed would be more beneficial to them than at any other point. To the Court : The tailings would not alone wash away their boxes, but would fill up their tailings-site, and block their workings. To Mr Purkiss : I made a survey on June 25th. Complainants showed me two pegs on the western boundary. There were two pegs shown me in the direction of the lines to other pegs. I surveyed half-an-acre to ascertain where the other pegs ought to be, and fixed them accordingly. The Court adjourned at 1 till 2 o’clock. On the Court resuming,

R. J. Seddon, examined by Mr Jones, said : I originally marked the complainants’ special site. I identify the plan produced as corresponding to the area of ground marked by me. The tailings-site was then on the bank of the river and where the pegs were pot. [t was since then impossible to maintain them next to the river. I consider that the fall for tailings which the complainants’ tailings-site possessed was ruined through the action of the Government blocking it up with tailings from sludge-channel. I was in possession as owner of the tailings-site in dispute in 1879, and never saw any notice posted by the sludge-channel manager there. The property of the complainants is considerably depreciated by the action of the defendant. I should say that the six shareholder have suffered a loss of £SO each. Complainants would now have to construct a new tail-race at a cost of £1 per foot. The Minister of Mines told, me in June or July last that he had given instructions to stop the discharge of tailings in the direction of complainants’ special site. The Minister for Mines had visited the site when at Kuraara, and subsequently stated that if complainants proved their rights, the Government was disposed to compensate them for the damage. Consequently the complainants petitioned the Government for a subsidy of £750 towards the construction of a new tunnel.

To Mr Purkiss :—I do not think the subsidy asked for in complainants’ petition was £350, but I believe it to have been £750. Ido not know that the instructions from the Minister to stop running No. 1 branch were transmitted. lam not aware that any tailings have been discharged from No. 1 branch during this year ; but I saw a letter from the manager which indi] cated this. lam the only person who originally marked the tailings-site. [Witness here pointed out on the plan where the notice was posted.] I have not served a copy of the notice to the Manager. The pegs put in were marked A, B, C, and D. Slabs marked by a tomahawk were used as pegs. [The witness next pointed out on the plan where the pegs A, B, c, and D were actually placed, and their respective positions as regards the river.] About 1-sth of the site Is now in the river. Irrespective of the complainants having to construct a new tail-race, they have suffered considerable damage besides through having to keep a man at the tail-boxes. The private or other parties had nothing to do with filling up this site. The tail-race was not registered outside the boundaries of the tailings-site.

Augustine Sellars, said : I am a shareholder in the registered tunnel and special site. My party purchased from Mr Seddon and others about three years ago. I saw the notices stated by the last witness posted on the site. Mr Seddon had shewn me the pegs, and I am positive the line pointed out on the ground to-day corresponds with the site as shown to me three years ago. The first lot of boxes were washed away over eighteen months ago by reason of the water from branch No. 2 from the Government sludgechannel. The damage to the boxes then I estimate at £l2. The next actual damage caused was through the extension of No. 1 branch when 2G boxes were destroyed, of a value of £52. The next damage was the covering of the site by tailings, and blocking the discharge from our workings, the Government jumping the ground in front of our rights, and occupying the best ground of discharge for our tailings. My party has had to, and do now keep on an extra man at the tailbox, consequent on the action of the Government. Mr Gow had shown witness a peg on the tailings-site after the issue of the certificate for same. The estimate sent by my party to the Government was for 1600 feet of a new tail-race, at 16s per foot, and requested the Government to pay half. We had to incur the expense of one extra man's wages for ten months. We could get a fall to work our claim by constructing a new tail-race as proposed, The river has filled up, at that part ten feet, consequent upon the discharge of tailings from the Government sludge-channel. To Mr Purkiss: My party claim damages for loss of boxes and blocking of tailings-site generally. Part of the present damage was done before and after last Christmas. The tailings-site is now useless as a site from the present level of our tunnel, we having, with the assistance of the Government, filled it up. The Government has not crossed the line of our boxes with the Government boxes, but the water, sludge, and tailings have crossed. The Government sludge channel water has prevented our access to (ho deep channel in the river, wherein to deposit tailing^

When I saw one of the pegs put in by Mr Seek!on in jeopardy of being washed away about two and a half years ago, I then put in a line peg. Re-examined by Mr Jones : I do not think that any of the damages now claimed for were caused before July, 1884. In consequence of complaints I made to Mr Gow, the Government put in a breakwater. To the Court : The water from the Government channel undermined out boxes, I notified Mr Gow, and Mr Gow put in a crate as a break- water. The boxes were again washed away; then two crates were put in, but not high enough. I requested Mr Gow on three occasions to protect our ground ; and, in the absence of such protection, we had to abandon our best position.

David Seaton, another of the complainants, corroborated the evidence of the last witness as to having seen one of the pegs with a notice on it, when the site was applied for by Mr Seddon, and as to the damage caused; also that Mr Gow was aware of the application made by Mr Seddon. To the Court: We own five acres and have four of that to work, being the best part of our claim. To Mr Purkiss : I saw the notice posted at the time Mr Seddon said he would smother the Government channel if he had the show.

This concluded the evidence for the complainants. Mr Purkiss then addressed the Court and Assessors for the defence, and called and examined the following witnesses ; „

John Gow said ; 1 was in 1880 Manager of the Kumara Water-race and sludge-channel. Her Majesty the Queen holds a registered certificate for channel from Larrikins to the site claimed by the complainants, as shown on plan now produced. In ISSO my attention was called to a tailings-site granted to Mr Seddon. No notice had been given me of. the application. After seeing the report of the Wardens Court proceedings and of the site having been gi’anted, I, in company with an assistant (Mr Turnbull) anticipating future trouble, had a careful survey made of the site granted. [The witness here quoted from a diary made on the dates of such survey and of the manner’ in which the survey connected the then location of the special site with othersurvey marks, and of having plotted the whole in the drawing produced.] The peg upon which Mr Seddon’s notice was then posted was outside the registered line of sludge-channel about seven links. During my time as Manager up to June last I have not run any tailings up to the special site. The boxes washed away were placed outside the tailings-site pegs I have seen to-day. Sellars’ statement that the complainants lost fall through the raising of the bed of the river is correct. Prom the appearance of the river to-day it has filled up considerably and has lost fall in certain places. To Mr Jones : I am quite sure that the area as marked by Mr Seddon was IX perches. I would not undertake to swear that another peg was not in the ground. In consequence of the complainants having told me that they required the assistance of the Government to construct a new tunnel, crates were put in to spare them as much as possible. The tailings and water from the Government channel filled up the space which the complainants could discharge tailings on. The defendants gave me to understand long ago that as they were then going they could not go on much longer than five or six months with their present fall. They were losing fall through their own action, and also that of the Government, from the natural discharge of tailings. The complainants’ boxes suffered damage. The application produced for sludge-channel is the one representing same. The channel is registered three feet six inches deep, and three feet wide. The Witness pegged the line of channel, with a peg to every chain. Notices were posted at several conspicuous places, and one notice at the lower peg. X did not give the owners of the complainants’ tail-race a notice of the application for channel. The tailings-site as marked by Mr Mr Seddon was of very little use as such ; only one corner of it could be utilised for tailings. I knew Raleigh and party’s discharge of tailings. I did not object to their tail-race, being granted. The owners ot the tailings-site, when applying for the same, conld see that the sludge-channel was then commenced, the. site having been marked by pegs along to their boundary. Richard Turnbull said : I am Inspector of Works on the Hokitika and Grey Railway. I was at Kumara in 1880. I was then requested to go with Mr Gow to Mr Seddon’s tailings-site. I found four pegs, and assisted Mr Gow with the survey, and I now recognise, on the plan produced, the position

of the pegs that contained the application notice. I was lequestcd to take notes of the position of the pegs; and from notes then made in my pocketbook on the 25th and 26th October, 1880, only one. of Mr Seddon’s pegs were on the river-side of the sludgechannel line. Mr Seddon and I had agreed on the ground to-day as to the position of the two pegs next to the tunnel. This concluded the evidence for the defence. Mr Putkiss again addressed the Court and assessors.

The Court was adjourned at G to 7 p.m. On resuming, Mr Jones addressed the Court for the complainants. The Warden then summed up, and (he assessors retired at a quaiter-past 8, and at ten minutes past 9 returned to Court with the following verdict : Damage for injury to registered site, £2OO ; damage to boxes, £64; counsel’s fee, £5 5s ; two witnesses, £2 2s ; Court costs, £3 16s.—Total £2 to 3s, This concluded the business of the Court.