WARDEN'S COURT. July 7. EXPLOSION OF MINING SUBILY PROPOSALS.

Mount Ida Chronicle, Volume VII, Issue 383, 14 July 1876, Page 2

WARDEN'S COURT. July 7.

EXPLOSION OF MINING SUBILY PROPOSALS.

(Before H. T7. Kobinson, Esq., Warden.) - All Men and Other (7 in all) t William Jacob and Others.—Complaint for in terference "with, and damage to, a "water raco known as Coopers' (Band of Hope, registeered). Damages, £6O. Mr. Bailey for complainants, Mr. Howlatt for defendants. Mr. Bailey said that npon enquiry as a portion of the claim for damages was for loss of gold, and the gold, in fact, was still in complainants' claim—he was willing to reduce the demand to £25 15s. 3d., being for loss of time, £2l, and loss of water, £4 15s. 3d. Inder, being" sworn, produced a document purporting to be the agreement under which complainants held the race from Cooper Bros. Mr. Botflatt objected that the document, being an agreement ior a lease, required be stamped accordingly, instead of with a Is. stamp merely. The matter was referred to the Clerk of the Court who said the amount of fine and duty . to make the document admissable as evidence- would bo£o 14s. This being paid, tlve document was receiTed by the Court. Mr liowlatt then objected that the lease or agreement referred to only four persons as lessees, of whom only three were now mentioned as complainants. Mr. Bailey desired to amend the complaint to obviate this difficulty, but Mr. Eowlatt would not consent, and theCourt expressed it 3 opinion that the complaint could only be amended by consent. The 27th rule ot course allowed an amendment of proceedings of the Court, but this could not be held to apply to a radical amendment of a complaint which was essentially a proceeding not of the Court itself but of the party initiating a case. The New Zealand law had made no provision, as has been done in Victoria, for amendment in cases of non-joinder or misjoinder of parties. Mr. Bailey said he would take a non-suit. Nonsuit recorded. Plaintiffs to pay costs of defendants, 003., and 425. professional fee.

J tiLY 10. Newman t. Murdoch.—Judgment in this case, had been reserved from July 7th- In delivering judgment the Warden said that the case appeared to come ■within the purview of the proviso to sec. 2 of reg. 26. It'has been established by evidence that defendant's water right was of older date than complainant's~" tail race grant-, and that the defendant was in the habit of letting down tailings by opening the traps in the side, of the race before complainant's tail race was applied for and the letting out cf the tailings was necessary for the use of the head race, as it was only tail water that could be taken into it. When first complainant's tail race was made it had been so covered that tailings could pass down the gully without damaging it, but recently the Chinese (lessees of complainant's race) had opened a large claicn in the very course of the tailings, and latterly had neglected to make provision to pass them on. Complaint dismissed, with. £3 nijd £2 2s, professional costs. '

Tho Premier did not mince matters •when dealing with the last year's pledge volunteered by Ministers to pubsidiso GoUfiolds revenue as rates, and return both rates and subsidies to mining districts for local expenditure. It is a melancholy na'.iafaction for us to know that the view we. have taken ever since the proposal was made baa turned out to be corrort. "We have always held that tb« proposed subsidy •was merely a bribe for electoral purpop.es. So it proves. In the first instance, in his Statement, the Premier ridiculed the idea of any balance of mining revenue being forthcoming after all the ehargos against it bad been deducted. Then he declared that tho Government proposed to give the revenue to the counties in which it was collected. .So that the old fallacious proposal to create certain mining districts apart trom the counties i 8 at an end. Under tho Local Government Bill of last year nearly all miners would be disfranchised ia their counties. So that, if the proposal is not materially modified, the County Council would really have the expenditure of all mining revenue upon works in that County, to the great relievement of the general ratepayer. What return would the miners of Naseby have for their revenue if expended in a County reaching from the Manuherikia to Pal erston, or from Strathtaiori to Cromwell? The main road would swallow the lot and not show it. The Goldfiolds hnve been grossly treated in this matter. Miners can hardly be said to have been deceived, for their intelligence was too great in most instances to allow of deception. Yet, on the West Coast, Members were returned on the fallacy of tho district benefitting by the taxation when subsidised. All eyes are now open. We fail to see how a single Gold field Member can support the Government this session. If there bo one, wo pray for liis enlightenment.