COURT OF APPEAL.

Nelson Evening Mail, Volume IX, Issue 288, 5 December 1874, Page 2

COURT OF APPEAL.

IMPORTANT MINING CASE. Wellington, Saturday. In the Court of Appeal in re Burton and others v. Hone and others, the following questions are submitted to the Court: — 1. Have the goldfields laws of the colony abridged the common law with regard to the rights of a riparian proprietor, and sanctioned the use of nataral streams of water in a manner, and for purposes, which would be actionable in England? 2. If the auriferous deposits in the goldfields referred to belong to her Majesty, and they cinnot be worked without fouling an i polluting streams, can afeeholder maintain an action for polluting by gold mining under the existing laws a stream or river that flows .past bis freehold? 3. As the holders of the pastoral license mentioned in the case, would the plaintiffs, before the surrender of such a license and obtaining a pastoral lease, have had any right of action arising out of the fouling of the waters of the streams before mentioned by reason of mining operations conducted and carried on without negligence? 4. As lessees finder the "Otago Waste Lands Act, 1866," have tbe plaintiffs such right of action in respect of their leasehold? 6. As freeholders or owners in fee of the land purchased by tbem before the proclamation ofthe goldfields in which the defendants claim is situated, bave tbe plaintiffs such rights and privileges as riparian proprietor?, OT otherwise, as entitle them to maintain an action for the fooling of the waters of the • streams by reason of mining operations . carried on and conducted without negligence? 6. As such freeholders in respect of land as purchased by them after the proclamation of the said goldfields, are the plaintiffs entitle! to maintain such action, or did the plaintifls purchase the lands subject in law to an easement of necessity in favor of the miners, the lawfully working on the gold- . fields enabling them by the nse of tail races to discharge the tailings into the said streams or tributaries thereof? 7. Are the plaintiffs entitled to maintain " inch sn action aa well in respect of tbeir freeholl or leasehold lands npon which any of the aaid streams abut merely, without passing throngb, as in respect of their said lands

respectively through which such stream passes and flows? 8. As in some of the Crown grants to the plaintiffs their land is des: ribsd, and, as a matter of fact, is bounded by a non-navigable nver, do the plaintiffs by reasons thereof require any riparian rights, and if aay such rights which prohibit miners discharging their tailings into the river? 9. Should it be found by tho arbitrator that the plaintiffs stojd by while the defendants were ensged in constructing water races and tiil-races, and the plaintiffs knew of the progress of such works, and foresaw, or ought reasonably to have foreseen, that the ordinary use ofthe said races would re9ult in the fouling of fhe said streams, and tbat the plaintiffs took no steps to restrain defendants from completing their said races or discouraged them from expending their money and labor thereon, would such facts furnish a legal answer to the action, or to a claim for an injunction to restrain the defendants from continuing the injuries complained of, or would there ba ground for mitigating the damages? 10. Having regard to the practical impossibility of ascertaining to what extent the defendants have followed the streams as contradistinguished from the workings of other miners, upon what principle are damages to be assosael against the defendants? 1 1. If the plaintiffs are entitled to damages, in respect of what tenure or interest (as licensees, lessees, freeholders before, or freeholders after the proclamation of the goldfields) are they so entitled.