IMPORTANT MINING CASE.

Te Aroha News, Volume V, Issue 253, 25 April 1888, Page 2

IMPORTANT MINING CASE.

Henry Hyde v. John L. Murray and T, G. Marlow. The plaint, set out that the defendants wore the owners of the Success Claim, WaioroiiQfoniai ; that the claim represented Gftoen men's gronnd ; that for j the past four months defendants had failed to v.orlc it, regul.irly and continuously, as required by the Regulations, and therefore plaintiff prayed that the claim bo forfeited and awarded to him, etc. The following solicitors apreared : — Mr McG. Hay, for Mr Marlow; Mr Lush, for Mr Murrayfinstiuctcd by Trustees in Murray's estate) ; and Mr J. A. Miller, for plaintiff, Mr Miller in opening the case said : The Success Claim was taken up under the G.M.Distiicta Act, 1870, and would therefore have to he dealt with under the Rules and Regulations cS the Act of 1873, in support of which argument he quoted section 5, of the Mining Act, 1880. Rule 10 of the "Regulations applicable to Act of 1873 set forth that claims shall be worked by at least one man for every 15,000 square feel, known as one man's gronnd, therefore the Success w.iuM require to be worked with fifteen men ; whereas he would submit it had not been ever worked with fifteen men, part of the time had not been norkod at all, and part of the time, with only one or two men. Ho wished to direct the attention of the Court to part of Section 00, of (he G.M. Distiicts Act, 1870, which sets forth that "in no case shall a monetary fine be substituted when then* lin c ; been a- wilful and continuous neglect 10, employ the required number of men." (1. Wil«on, (sworn), in reply to Mr Miller, f was Mining Registrar for this portion of Ha'iraki Mining Districtup to o*lfct March. T know the Success cl.uin, T. G. Marlow and J. Me L.

Murray, the defendants in fh° present ease weiv t ho owners of thed.iim. The claim tvaii laken up and registered under the GM. District Acb of 1873. The claim was taken up on 30th Augnst 188G and registered September 4t\\, The claim represents fifteen men's ground, throe men to aiiacire. The last certificate of protect ion issued by me was for one month, expiring November 22nd, 1 887. I have no record of any other protection. The- claim is a Registered Claim and no license for the ground has been applied for to my knowledge. Cro^s examined by Mr Lush : I am also Mmmc Inspector for the District. Beyond the statement put in, of my own peisonal knowledge 1 cannot say if the claim is fifteen mens ground. [do not remember Mr JFir c t ever asking me the number of men required to work the claim. fn reply to x\[r H.iy : According to the old Regulations, fifteen men would require to Up at work on the ground durng the time referred to in the plaint, Knquirics were muds by a Mr Edwards ol Te A rob a., about the beginning of this year, re f.hi? claim. JJe askolme whnit time the protection would be up, and I think 1 replied, about the month of February. 1 believe he asked the question on behalf of Auckland shareholder?, In rep'y to Sir Miller : If a man's ground is an acre and a third, under the now Act it would take four men to work the Success. The protection granted in October, 1887 was absolute protection. Heniy Jobn Hyde (sworn), in reply to Mr Miller : At the time this plaint was laid I was the holder of four £1 Miner's Eights (produced, three dated April 3rd), which I took out before lodging the complaint. I know the Success Claim, and worked in it about November or December,. 1886. From my knowledge of tho boundaries I should say the claim was about three and a half acre«, and the line of reef ia the ground about four chains. There are two defined reefs in the ground. I was on the ckim twice in .December and one« in .January, and went into the workings. No one was working, nor did Hie mine present the appearance of any work going on on either of these occasions. IwasthereagaininMarch. A man named Kirker was at workwhen I visited the claim in March. I believe another man was put on about tiie 22nd March. I wish the Court to give me an order to take possession of the claim, and am prepared to take it up under my Miner's Rights. In reply to Mr I fay : I was a workman in the Success Claim, and was aware it had been protected, and knew the protection oxpited in November, i did not go expressly for the pnrpose of seeing whetluu the claim was liable to bo forfeited in T/ecoraber or January, but did go for that purpose in March. T swear there is no one else interested in this application but myself. I ara not under a verbal agreement to give shares to anybody in the event of my getting the claim. Mr Comes has spoken to me several times about the ground, both before and since I laid the plaint. Mr Comes never asked me to trivc him a " show" if I got the ground. I have had no conversation with either Mr Don or Mr Murray on the subject. The money to enable me to take up this case was lent me by Mr Don. I simply asked Mr Don for the loan of the money, and he gave it to me ; I do not think he know what I wanted it for. Mr Don is not one of those who stand in with me. In reply to Mr Lush : I hold no other claim. There is plenty of room to peg oi! ground without laying this plaint. One of my Miner's Rights is dated j March 21st. I took it out because my previous one had ran out, it had run out about a month. (Later on the witness said his Miner's Right expired about the November previous.) I have been working for Mr Comes on tho Champion claims on and off since T came baok from the "West Coa^fc in November lasf. Thomas Kit leer (sworn): In reply to Mr Miller : T have been working lately in the Succors mine, Waiorongomai. Myself and a man named McCloud went to work on 2 ( Jth January, and w»» worked for thirty-thrrjp days before we knocked oil ; and I then went to Marototo for one week, after which I returned and resumed work foy ten days hy myself, when McCloud again joinod me, and we have worked there till now. Mr S. Hirst engaged me to work in the claim on behalf of Murray's estate. In reply to Air Hay : During the past four months quartz has been sent from the mine to Thames. Siimuol L. Hurst, (sworn). In reply to Mr Miller, said : Am a cordial manufacturer resilient at Te Aroha. i know the Success mine ; ami have acted in connection therewith as agent for the Trustees in Murray's estate ; and am paid 12s Gd per week, since January by them to look after the min<\ I engaged two men in January last. I had no definite instructions to employ more or less. I also saw to the despatch of quartz; to Thames, etc. I received in structions from Messrs Wingafce, Burns and Co.. (Trustees), to put on men sufficient to hold the ground, and I thought two men would suffice. The wages were paid by the Trustees through me, Tho quartz w.ts sent fo the IYinco Imperial lJalteiy to be crushed. In reply to Mr Hay; The inslinotions 1 received from Wingato, Hums an 1 Co., were to look after and keep intact the title to the Success claim 'Wingafo and I'urns informed me that Mr Ma v low was interested in the claim.

' Mi Lush put in evidence a Jotter -'dated sfcli March, from Wingate, Eurn«. and Co, to witness, requesting him to do all that was necessary to protect the ground ,* also another letter after the plaint had been lodged, in which Messrs Wingate, Burns and Co, asked witness "If 3' on acted on our instructions by keeping men afc work in the mine, how is it a plaint is laid ?" In reply to Mr Lnsli the witness Hirst said : My instructions were to do what was necessary, I went to the Mining Inspector, Mr Wilson, after I had been instructed to 'look after the interest of the owners of the claim, and in reply to my enquiry Mr Wilson told- me it would require about three and a half men to hold the ground. In reply to Mr Miller : Jfc was in the month of March I saw Mr Wilson as to the number of men required, Thomas George Mnrlow (sworn) : In reply to Mr Hay : I am a commercial traveller, my head quarters being in Auckland. lam part owner of the Success Claim, and the remainder is owned by the Trustees of Murray's estate, Being greatly absent from Auckland myself c empowered Mr Burns (of Wingate l3urns and Co,), to act on my behalf, I visited the ground twice since the beginning of the year, and on oach occasion two men were at work there, X saw Mr Hirst in both February and April, and understood from him he hid clone what was pcc<?s«ary. In December I saw Mr Edwards, of Te Aroha, at Thames, and asked him to enquire if the claim was protected, and he telegraphed to me the claim was fully protected until Oth Feb. (Ceitified copy of telegram put in.) In reply to Mr Miller : I purchased one seventh interest (2.l4ths), in this, claim. John Burns (of Wingate Burns and Co,, Auckland), (sworn), in reply to Mr Lush : I ana one of the trustees in Mur- V ray's estate. I understood from both. Mr Marlow, and also from one of our clerks, who was down here, that the Succese Claim was fully protected up to Feb. 6th. 1 instructed Mr Hirst to look after the claim, and also to take out a crushing. There were no circumstances to lead us to suppose the ground was not fully protected.