MUSING APPEAL CASES.

Te Aroha News, Volume VII, Issue 444, 8 February 1890, Page 6

MUSING APPEAL CASES.

ARGUMENT IN BANCO. Auckland, February 3. The Supreme Court was occupied to-day, and is likely to be occupied for some days to come with two appeals from decisions given by the Warden of the Hauraki mining district. The cases set dowD were : (1) Hosking (appellant) v. the . Caledonian Goldmining Company, Limited (respondents): (2) The Caledonian Gold- ' ming Company, Limited (appellants) v. Alfred Sawyer (respondent). His Honor Mr Justice Conolly presided. Hosking (appellant) v. The Caledonian Goldmining Company (respondents).—Mr Theo. Cooper appeared for the appellant and Mr C. E. Button for the respondents.— Mr Button stated that in this case no evidence would be given at this sitting of the Court. His friend, Mr Cooper, had given him notice of three or four alternative courses which he claimed to be entitled to pursue. At the conclusion of Sawyer’s case, unless they agreed otherwise, therefore, they would ask His Honor to hear argument upon which of these courses his learned friend was entitled to take. The second case was then called.

Caledonian Goldmining Company (appellants) v. Alfred W.SAWYEK(respondenb).— Mr E. Hesketh appeared with Mr Miller for the appellant Company, and Mr Theo. Cooper, with Mr C. E. Purchas, for the respondent. Mr Cooper stated that this was a complaint made under the provisions of the Mining Act, 1886, upon which Warden Northcroft had delivered judgment in favour of the complainant, and it now came before the Court by reason of an appeal on the part of the defendant Company. Consequently the whole proceedings would be gone over afresh, and His Honor would be asked to hear the whole of the evidence on both sides, with a view to determining whether or not the Warden was incorrect in the judgment which he passed on the occasion of the hearing. There were mixed questions of law and fact involved. The facts were simple, bub would , occupy considerable time, owing to the number of witnesses to be examined. The quosbions of law were also comparatively few, bub compassed an examination of the Mining Act and the various provisions for the regulation of mines, and also consideration of the law of negligence. The appellants alleged that the complainant, previously to and at the time of the accident, was a miner, employed as a tributer in the Caledonian mine, Thames, of which the respondents were owners ; that on the 26th March, 1889, the plaintiff was lawfully, and at the invitation of the defendant company, descending the shaft of the said mine by means of a cage, for the purpose of working his tribute ; and that owing to negligence of the defendants in not having the shaft securely lined or otherwise made secure, in compliance with subsection 23 of section 207 of the Mining Act, 1886, the cage was stopped in its descent, and fell a distance of six feet; that complainant got the whole of the fingers of his right hand crushed and permanently injured, and was, consequently, ill for twelve weeks ; and that he was . now prevented from carrying on his business. He therefore claimed to receive £SOO compensation. Upon hearing of this claim the Warden gave judgment for the complainant, finding that the Company had been guiby of negligence, and that the complainant was entitled bo recover. He assessed the damages at £375 and allowed costs £l6 4s. The notice of appeal lodged by the Company alleged that there was no evidence of negligence on the part of the defendant Company, its agents or servants, in keeping that portion of the defendant’s shaft where the accident happened, and from which the complainant received his injuries, securely cased and lined, or otherwise secure; that there was no evidence to show that the natural strata around the shaft were not safe ; that the defendants had complied with the requirements of the Act as far as it was reasonably practicable; that there was contributory negligence on the part of the complainant, and that the damages allowed were excessive. The appellantsadmitbed: (1) The title of the Company to the ground, and that on the day when the accident happened to Sawyer they were the owners of, and in occupation of, the mine ; (2) That they were in occupation of the shaft and of the cage in which the injury occurred; (3) That Sawyer, by their invitation, was lawfully using the cage and shaft at that time; (4) The boundaries of the Hauraki Mining district; (5) That the Company’s mine is within that district; and(6) that the Mining Act, 1886, was and is in full force and operation in that district. The question at issue was thus narrowed down to whether or nob the Company were guilty of negligence in the management of the shaft; and whether, assuming that they were guilty, the respondent Sawyer was guilty of contributory negligence so as bo disentitle him to recover. Then there was the question as to whether the damages awarded were excessive, and this, Mr Cooper suggested, was .the question practically upon which the Company appealed. Mr Cooper then went into a statement of the facts, which are pretty well known, and subsequently dealt with the. legal aspect of the question at considerable length. The case was not concluded.