THE Mount Ida Chronicle FRIDAY, AUGUST 11, 1871.

Mount Ida Chronicle, Volume II, Issue 128, 11 August 1871, Page 4

THE Mount Ida Chronicle FRIDAY, AUGUST 11, 1871.

During a recent tri 1 in the Warden's Court a point was raised by Mr. Smythies, counsel for the complainants, which, if sustained, cannot fail to render mining properties throughout the Otago Goldfield insecure in tenure, if not absolutely valueless. The poiut referred to was not, however, gone into —the judgment being given upon other grounds. We deem it, however, our duty to call attention to the subject, in order that it may, if necessary, be settled by legislative enactment ; as, though not pressed at the time, the point may be again and at any time raised, and with results which must inevitably plunge persons into difficulty, if not ruin. We will state the case to which we refer as nearly as possible in effect, divesting it, nevertheless, of unnecessary complication. A B is the holder of a residence area acquired in—say 1863. This area he has held and continued to hold up to the day of action, without cavil and without hindrance of any kind. This area is demanded to be given up for mining purposes, but the proper steps are not taken under sections 4, 5, and 6 of Regulation xx. of the Goldfitlds Uules and Regulations, which provide the means by which entry into and upon such area may be obtained. Mr. Smythies, in conducting the case for the complainants, contended that unless A B could show a clear, continuous, and uninterrupted right, by being the holder throughout of a miner's right from the date of irrant to the day of action, the occupation of him (A .B) ceased, even though he had subsequently taken out a new

miner's right, and had throughout held occupation. In tact the argument of Mr. Smythies was that, though a holder of a miner's right at the time of purchase, if, during the eight years that had elapsed from that date to the day of trial, it could be proved that A B had been for one year, or portion of a year oyer thirty days (being the days of grace without a miner's right) his, A B's, right to the land in question had lapsed, and that though since that time he (A B) had been in constant and undisturbed possession of the land, the necessity for obtaining permission of the VV r arden to enter and prospect un der the clauses above referred to had become unnecessary, there having been a break, or absence of a link, in the title of AB. Mr. Smythies further insisted that no re-occupation could take place after a missing link in the miner's right title (see section vi. Goldfields Act, 1866) unless a fresh application for the area in question had been made and granted to A B. In reply to this it was urged that, so long as the title of A B to trie area had been legally acquired under a miner's right, that he had continued to occupy, even without holding a miner's right, his title, if unassailed, remained good, provided that at the time of any action being taken to dispute that title, he held a miner's right at the time of suing or being sued (see clause exii., Goldfields Act, 1866). In other words, the question to be de?ided, and one which must necessarily have an important influence, whether for good or evil, is whether a title legally acquired under a miner's right, and subsequently maintained by occupation, can be assailed and upset if it can be proved that at any time the owner or occupier has been, for ever so short a time, without being in possession of a miner's right, even-though at the time of his title being assailed he was the holder of a miner's right. We deem the matter so important that we have drawn attention to the subject in order that it may receive thorough and entire ventilation, and that should Mr. Smythies' views on the matter be correct, legislative means may be taken in the forthcoming session of: the Assembly to condone past omissions, and proclaim fully and distinctly, and within the comprehension of any person of average capacity, what is and what is Liot' required to render titles to mining property secure for the future. So many and so diversified are the interests likely to be affected by the point raised by Mr. Smythies that the sooner the question is set at rest the better for all parties interested —and their name, we might truly sav, is Legion. We should have been glad to have been able to insert in full the clauses to which reference has been made, but our limited, space necessitates our refraining from so doing.