Thank you for correcting the text in this article. Your corrections improve Papers Past searches for everyone. See the latest corrections.

This article contains searchable text which was automatically generated and may contain errors. Join the community and correct any errors you spot to help us improve Papers Past.

Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image

HUMPHREYS Y. McBRINN MARITOTO FIND. APPEAL.

Suprene C nrvt \ivklin 1 . J"Wem' o • "21-t, before HU Honour, Mr Justice G'iliV- ) This w:i<- »n ppp&al from f'-p Thame-> 'Warden* Cmiit, in aa net ion Li ought h\ 'i h^inas Mice II uriplii 1 . y* (soli i/nr) \ Richard Mcßrinn (pm<.peelor), Rikufui.i. for po&se-'sinn or" certain mining iMojiintv. known r\s the Pioxpeclov's Claim, M.iri'ofo. Mr H. Ca-npbell apreared for the appellant, find Mr Edwin Hesketh for the iespon<-Init, Mr Campbell expl line 1 the proceedings, Th^v ■were taken under the Mining Act, 1886, which provided for a reheaiing of the enae bv the Supreme Couit. The plaint against Mcßrinn heurd in the Warden's Court was on the giouml that the pliiintiff hud not complied with the mining regulations in marking out the ground which he occupied. The case was heard on tho 6th of October, and adjourned till the 20th, when it was dismissed with costs, and thereupon Mi* Humpreva gave notice of appeal. His Honor asked what questions of fact Mr Ca-ripbe'l appealed on. The appeal niUßt be on muHeis of fact. Mr Campbell aaid the paint vvna dismissed, they naid the Magistral was %vrong, and th*>y now came to this Couif to ask i£ to hear the evidence and decide. Mr Hcsketh «aid the notice of appeil did not eet out any facts upon which the Warden found, and foi am tiling that appeared, it may have been decided on a queafcion of law His Honor asked whether the short facts of the case were not thnc became the respondent had not dug 'tranches at the correr the appellant was entitled ro come in. Mr Campbell intimated that such wag the contention. His Honor said he had these facts beforo him in the early days of goldmining, and had strong ,'opinion on the subject'; and after some further argument evidence was called. Frederick J. Burgess, clerk in th« Warden's Court at the Thames, and formerly clerk of the Thames District Court, produced tho Gazette abolishing the Thnmes District Court. He also produced the applications made by Mcßrinn. While the witness was under examination, Mr Hesketh raised the point that the only question befoie the Court . was whether the trenches had been cut in accordance with regulation No. 3. and the license was isauel. Mr Campbell eaid that this couid not bo an answer to their plaint, and His Honor Baid they need not go so far afc present, they would stick to the trenches. The witness then gave evidence as to the result of the action, and in cross examination he eaid three objections had been made to the application 'by Mi* Humpreys, the first was withdrawn by Mr Humphreys, the second was disallowed by the "Warden, and the third was thrown out, not having been lodged in time. He produced the Warden's license, and identhis signature ; it was issued on the 24th of October. Witness had received no notice of appeal from Mr Humphreys afc that date, although on the 20th the Warden had intimated that lie would grant the license on that date. Richard Mcßrinn, the defendant in the action, produced his application for a license and tre pegging one of the ground. In reply to Mr Hesketb,, be eaicl he markacl ont the claim — the Prosppctors v claim — at Hikutaia T)y putting in four pegs with distinguishing marks, and catting trenches with axe and tomahawk, and he blazed a line from peg to peg to enable him to find his way. He ■poatively swore that he made the trenches, and pufc in the notched posts on the 10th of August, before he made the application for a license Thomas M. Humphreys, 'he appellant, deposed to tnurking ont ground at Mariteto, on the 31st of Augu*t on the line of reef within Moßrinn's ground. He Baw no trenches. On ths> Ist of September, he gave notice to the Warden that ho ha' marked out an area of ground within that applied ((ft by the re-

. S;ondent. In cross-examination, witness said ; ue had been in the district for some days, and know that Mcßrinn ha \ pegged out the proapeoftors 1 claim. Ho pegged out five acres within the area, hut ho only held the miners' right produced. He did not now that it was a block of native land, Ohiuemuri, No. 20, but ho had been told so on making inquiries. He pegged out the ground because Mußrinn rofused to show him his pt?«s, not because f-eneheß had not been cut, although he ha-1 good reason to believe they were not cut. Charles Forrester, a minor deposed that when ho was shown the pegs there was no sign of any trenches, and this was three weeks after the pegging out Mr Campbell put in the various Gazette notifications. Mr Heskoth aslco ] the Court to dismiss Hie appeal, as there was no provision by which a nonsuit might be granted. The appellant had failed upon one important point, thai it wns not righl. for a pcison to bring an artion to obtain possession r\f land before the license wus granted by the Warden. The title for the land was, in his opinion, absolutely indefeasible. His Honor said it wa9 nnneeessaay to go further, as ho was quite satisfied this was a simple case of "jumping. " He was quite satisfied that thin was an attempt to fake advantage of an assumed technical defect. The Warden wustho best julgo :is to whether the provisions of the Act had been complied with. He was on the spot, and it would bo absurd for (he judge of tnc Supreme Court to set up as a judge of mining affair^. H;id he been in the Warden's plafO, he thought he would have given a vmihir decision. It might have been very different had this been a c>if=e between two minor* who weio equally interested and bona fide malting efforts to take up ground, but. when a solicitor of the Court went and pegged out land boeiui«e of a technical defect, ho must confess that it di 1 not find much favoui with him* After some further conversation, 11U Honor dismissed the appeal with costs, £20, and witnesses' expenses.

Permanent link to this item
Hononga pūmau ki tēnei tūemi

https://paperspast.natlib.govt.nz/newspapers/TAN18871224.2.16

Bibliographic details
Ngā taipitopito pukapuka

Te Aroha News, Volume V, Issue 234, 24 December 1887, Page 3

Word count
Tapeke kupu
1,032

HUMPHREYS V. McBRINN MARITOTO FIND. APPEAL. Te Aroha News, Volume V, Issue 234, 24 December 1887, Page 3

HUMPHREYS V. McBRINN MARITOTO FIND. APPEAL. Te Aroha News, Volume V, Issue 234, 24 December 1887, Page 3

Help

Log in or create a Papers Past website account

Use your Papers Past website account to correct newspaper text.

By creating and using this account you agree to our terms of use.

Log in with RealMe®

If you’ve used a RealMe login somewhere else, you can use it here too. If you don’t already have a username and password, just click Log in and you can choose to create one.


Log in again to continue your work

Your session has expired.

Log in again with RealMe®


Alert