PLAINT AGAINST GRANTING LICENSE TO THE PROSPECTOR. THE HIKUTAIA DISCOVERY.

Te Aroha News, Volume V, Issue 220, 17 September 1887, Page 4

PLAINT AGAINST GRANTING LICENSE TO THE PROSPECTOR.

THE HIKUTAIA DISCOVERY.

.At the Wm den's Comt on Thursday \ist, befoie 11. A. Stratford, Esq., Warden, the following plaint, lodged by T. M. Humphreys Against Richard Meßrinn, tho liikiitaia projector, was dealt with :— " I beg to object, under Mining Regulaticn No. 12, to tlie i^uo of a license to Kielnud MeHiinn for laud for mining purposea at Maiitoto (Jieek, IliUut.ii.i, upon the following gioutnN, viz. .— (i) Upon the 30th AuJiut last at 10 15 a.m., in compliance with section 103 of the Mining Act, 188(3, I, as the hohiei of a minei's r'mht, peKson.illy sei\ed upon Rich ird Meßiinn, at Maiitoto Creek, 1 1 ikutaiu, the following wntk n i.otieo, \ V/..:~- To Kiehard McCi inn, miiKT, Ilikut li.i, — L hereby require you, undv'i section 103 of the Mining Act, to indicate and shew to me within 24 houis after leeeipt of this notice tie posts or other marks delining your chum ;it M.uitoto Cieek, Jhkutaia." Upon my h> nding- the above notice to Kiehard Meßiinn, he positi\ely declined to show me hi* posts or other maiks defining his claim, and being the holdei of a minci's light (No. 3718) 1 assumed, under section 103 of the Act, that the claim was unmarked, and after the lapse of 24 hours after the delivery of the aforesaid notice to Richard Meßnnn, 1 nitiiked out a claim which I believe is located within the aiea for which Kiehard Meßiinn has applied for a license, the same being' occupied on my behalf by John McGimpsey, miner, (2) That the applicant, Kichaid Meßrinn, has failed to comply with Regulation No 3, Part I, of the Mining Act, 1886, viz , that such laud, being in bush, he failed pievious to makingapplication for a license to clear one end line, and blaze the trees on such line irom peg to peg. Mr Miller appeared foi defendant. Mr Humphreys detailed his objections, and said he would call Richard Aießriun as a witness. Richaid. Meßrinn v>as called, but did not put in an appeal ance. Mr Humphreys said he had not subpoened Mcßrinn, as he consideied that he would be piesent. T. Al. Humphreys, sworn, stated that he was the holder of the miners right No. 3718, produced. On tho 30th of August last he went up to the Alaritoto Creek, j Ilikutaia. accompanied by Chas. D. \ Wright. Witness taw defendant at the junction of the two creeks, and asked defendant to show him his pegs, but h* refused to do 60. Some iive or ten ; minutes afterwards, when the other parties had gone up to the mine, w itness called Mcßtinn aside, and told him he had come up on business, at the same time huuding him a written notice, a copy ot which w.tb filed in tlie Warden's, oiiiee, icquiiing him to show his pegs, in aceoi dance with section 103 of the Mines Act. Aleßiinn read the notice, and replied that he would not bhoW witness his pegs fur Ko — that he had just come down from the pegs, and would not go up again for anybody. \\ ltne.-'b then a-ktd him whether lie ck-aiLd one end line and blamed the treea beioie applying for a licence, to which a leply wa-s "I cleaitd no line, but 1 blazeJ a tree heie ami iheie." (jliailed Wiight was nibO piosent — <_'io-s>-'.i\ainiued by ill Aiiliei : ->it t Ait,LJimn on the bank or. the n <■ til . L>'d not hd\ c tea u Ith him. On th il occasion did not a-k Meßiinn, 4< [)o you want auyone to act toi )uu V" uoi Jul defendant icp'y, " I don't want anyone to act tor me, as 1 can do bo myst It." WitiiLbb came upon his own bu^ir.Cht.. Me Brian thd l'ut piomise to point out hin pegs if witness waited until the next morning. After the com eisation ceased \vitne>b left defendant, but saw him again the same evening at Uorbett's Hotel, when lie said that someone would, be on the claim next morning if witness wished to see the pegs. Went up to the junction next inoming about 10.15. Cannot hay whether the junction is on defendants claim or not. Do not know wheie bib pegs are. Chats. D. Wiight, settler at Omihu, stated that on the 29th August he oveituok ilumphieys, and by agi cement met him at Coibett's hotel next morning. They then proceeded togethei to a place called the Junction, at the new "liud," nud he heard Ilumphieys ask Alcßrinn if he would show him hit> pegs, but defendant replied that he hud just came down from the claim, and would not go up again for £5. Ba.\v phiintifl hand defendant a piece of paper, when Moßnnn, atter looking at it, caid he was very tired and had been bid all night, and would not go back for a£o note. Think he had some complaint. Humphreys asked defendant whether he hud, piior to putting in his application, cut a line from peg to peg aud blazed the treeb, when defendant answered that he Iwd cut no lines, but had marked a treo here and there. Plaintiff, taking out bio watch remarked that it was a quarter to eleven o'clock. This closed the case for plaintiff Mr Miller said he did not consider it necessary to call any evidence, and con tended that plainfifi had failed to prove his case, as it was incumbent upon him to piove that the claim was not marked in accoidancc with , the Regulations. The evidence really amounted to Mcßiinn saying that he had not cut a line, but then it might have been done by a surveyor, and only the trees blazed by Me Brian, if it was desired to prove that no line was cut, then it was clearly the duty of plaintiff to bring fonvaid evidence to this elfoct. He had to submit several contentions, viz., (1) that plaintiff wa* not the holder of a miner's light in force in a native distiict ; (2) that tr.e allegation tha< no line was cut is not confirmed in -jvidenee ; (3) that not having a mmm' right, plaintiff had no locus slandi in the Couit ; (4) that tho Warden on a former occasion a judic'a' notice that the land in question i on niiive lands ; (5) that if plaintiild< n.dtoo it mi po-scssion of the ground .i , set foiih in the plaint lie mu^t piov ihat he is the holder of a mineis' light which would authorise him to tuke possession; (6)that thid ground is not a ulaim, it hawng been decided by tho Court that land held as a licensed holding is not a claim, and in no part of the Act does it make it necessary that prior to making his application a perhon must mark out the ground, the Regulation being directory and not mandatory, find that it was cntiiely discretionary with the Warden whether he Would have any pegging rectified before granting or refusing a license.

Mi* Humphreys contended thai the land was within the Olrinemuri goldiield, and was therefore Ciown lands, so that the contention re minor's right would full to the giound ii' His Worshin held a similar view. The Uegnlation piovided that one end line must be otaared, but Meßiinn had stnUd that he h.id not done so, though ho li.it l blazed ,i tree or two heio and there. If His Wor-liip decided against him, he tnistcd a nonsuit would be gi anted. The Wai ilcn siid an ji|>plie.mt should maintain his position and show his peg* to those desirioua of seeing diem. It would certainly be as well were a nun reac.y on the ground say during a eeitain hour e\ 01 y iluy, or three times a wc.ilc, to point out the pegs, especially where the property was a \aluable one If a bicach of the Regulations had been committed, it w.i!) cleat ly competent for any person to come before the Uomt as complnin.int, and .section 278 pro\ ided the mo.le of penalty, lie was ofjOpinion, h.owever, th t plaintiff had completely failed to prove his allegation that the land was bush laud and theiefoie lequired matking out in the manner contended. This must be proved befoie the Couit could lie asked to decide whethei there hat been a breach ot :he ßegulations in tlii^ respect, and it was in it^el? fatal to the case, tt \v<h therefore not necesraiy that he should deal with any of the other points, but he thought it would be as well to touch upon them. There was no pi oof th'it the land was of that, kind necessary to takoth.it course which it was contended should be done, while a peison who desiied to g.tin possession of laud such as this, must be a holder of a £1 miners light, the ground being" native land, lie was not aware that he had any power undei the Act to nonsuit, but he would dismiss the caso without prejudice, on the ground that there was no evidence to show that it u a-* bush land. Costs XI Is would be allowed defendant, Mr llumphieys a^ked the to give his fuimal decision on the fust p.ut of the objection heaid . ast Court day, as he might desire to appeal. The Wiw den pointed out tint an appeal could not be upon an objection, but only on n plaint or summons, The Court then adjourned until 2 o'clock, and on resuming a similar objection to the above plaint was made by Mr llumpluey^ against a license being granted to Meßrinn. Evidence to pieu->eiy the same effect as in the foregoing plaini was given by % T. At. Humphreys and Cha^. Wright, after healing which His Worship dismissed the objection. "Thames Stai ."