HART v. ROUND HILL COM-PANY.

Otago Witness, Issue 2892, 11 August 1909, Page 28

HART v. ROUND HILL COMPANY.

AN INTERESTING JUDGMENT. On Tuesday at Riverlon Mr (i. Cruicltshank, waidsn, gave jivderncnt on th-» application of Frederick Hart for a special sluicing claim of 35 acres at Round Hill, the application being objected to by the Round Hill Company. The company ako applied for five acres at Round Hill, comprised in the area applied for by F. Hart. The applications were made at the Juno find July sittings of the courr. and the warden had visited the ground. The judgment was to the following effect: — "In this matter the principal contest centres in the objection of th-3 company to Hart's application for 35 acres of ground close to the present working of the company Ha'-t was , the manager of the company until Jast March. While in their employ he got somewhat over the boundary of the company s claim. Its elevator tables are outside the claim of the company, but Hart has not pegged in these tables. After being idle some three months Hart pegged out his present piece of ground. It has been unoccupied Crown land for some years, and the company never considered it worth holding. If Hart were a stranger he would be entitled to it. It is contended that for Hart to mine outside the company "c ground, and then to peg offt the ground ac his own, is a breach of trust which should not be encouraged by the court. I am a strong upholder of the extensive powers of the Warden's Court, both as a court of common law and of equity, to absolutely refuse any application or relief to anyone guilty of bad faith or a breach of trust. We have to examine Hart's conduct to find evidence of turpitude. But where is it? He worked the Crown land outsido the company's ground, and !he company obtained goid to which it had no right, but Hart Bays the company's officials were aware of it. He did not leave the company in the lurch to peg out the ground. He was dismissed, and the now manager says ho only found out three months later from the surveyor that the company was over the boundary. But the new manager should have known for some time past that the workings were so close to the boundary as to necessitate close scrutiny and a probable application for the extra ground. Tn ihc absence of express covenant, there is no «o!dfield law which birds a discharged manager from Passing °ff ground adjoining his late employer's claim when the ground is rendered attracti\e through information gained in his late work. There is no reason why Hart should not have this claim." To piorect the company's present working, certain conditions of working the claim were imposed upon Hart, at his <=u^gestion, and the judgment was concluded as follows: — " I grant, therefore. Hart's' application for It's claim, and for his tail raco and water race. The water race will bo protected for six months, and the claim and (he tail race will be granted upon condition that no foreign wat^r other than the present gully soakage, Hiranwd fo b^ a quarter of a head, be led into t^e prrhent paddock of the company for the poncd of 12 month> after the date- of grant After that time the grants will be unrestricted" Court costs (£5 fc) wero allowed to Mi Halt.