KAKAHU COAL COMMITTEE.

Temuka Leader, Issue 1392, 15 September 1885, Page 3

KAKAHU COAL COMMITTEE.

A meeting of the above was held in Mr Ash well’s office yesterday. Present—Messrs Talbot (Chairman), Barker, Brown, Wbeelband, and Two mey, Mr Butler, of Pleasant Point, was also in attendance. Letters were read from several persons offering their services as prospector?. A letters wa* read from Mr Munro (of Dunedin), one of the owners of property in the district, stating that he would help the Company in any way he coald. A letter was also read from Mr Wigley, stating that Dr Hector would send Mr Mackay to report on the district after the session. The report of Mr Binns, which we some time ago published in this paper, with some analysis of the coal by Dr Hector, were read, The following report, by Mr G, Butler (of Pleasant Point), was also read : To the Chairman of the Meeting for Promoting Prospecting at Eakahu, Sib, —In accordance with the suggestion made at last meeting, I and Mr Bowie and some five or six other persons interested met at Kakalm on the 4th inst., and we now have the honor to submit a brief report of our visit. We spent the day in examining various places of interest; but upon the general question of minerals to bo found there, we do not consider it within our province to report or make any definite or particular remarks, as we submit that experts only, in the various branches of mineralogy, are competent to give reliable information, and consequently gratuitous assertions from persons inexperienced in the various trades are not only likely to be in correct but misleading, and calculated to lead to disappointment and loss. We would therefore suggest that those persons most directly interested —owners of land or respective properties and others—should first ascertain the quality, and as far as possible the probable quantity, of the various minerals supposed to be found there, and also their practical value } also that this should be done by competent men thoroughly acquainted with the various deposits and the working of the same. However, if a payable seam of coal were found it would materially enhance the value of each, as means of transit would be improved by railway carriage, and consequently the cost of carriage would be less than by road traffic. Besides part of the products might be manufactured on the ground, and only the products of manufacture exported. We considered our visit to refer more particularly to the outcrops of coal or lignite to be found there, We have no doubt but that the outcrops we saw have long ago been seen by numbers of persons, and probably others have been seen also, but are now buried. It one instance, 1 know of a seam, quite as thick as any we saw on the day of our recent visit, which is now covered up, but which was quite visible in one of the water-courses when I was last upon the ground in 1868. Then to my mind there are at least four seams cropping out in various place in the water-courses and extending some distance east, apparently cropping out in the same line, the direction being N.N. West and S.S. East. ' The angle at which they dipped could not be ascertained, except in one thin seam on the hill side, and that showed an angle of about 50 degrees. This would bo too great for all practical purposes even if good coal be found. In order then to ascertain how the various seams dip, and as to whether they all have the same dip, or dip in different directions, and also the thickness of the different layers, we suggest that a few feet in the most convenient and exposed places be laid bare —in the places pointed out to Mr Barker, or other likely places—by some persons of experience, and another inspection made to throw further light upon these important points. That the various

atratas have a better and consequently more workable angle we have no doubt. It is simply a question of depth. The outcrop we consider is not an absolute guide as to the quality which may be obtained by following the same seams to their respective natural beds, otherwise we should be against further prospecting. As near as we could judge the third or lowest seam but one now visible appears to be the best of the whole.

(Signed for self and Mr Bowie), Geo. Botlbr,

Sept. 11, 1885. After some conversation, it was decided that as soon as the consent of owners of property in the district, together with a guarantee in the event of coal being found they will allow it to be worked at a reasonable rale, is got, men should be sent to work to bare the seams, so as to ascertain their value. It was stated that more recent inquiries have discovered four seams, some of which are 4ft. thick.

A hearty vote of thanks was passed to Mr Butler for his report, and also for the trouble he bad taken in the matter.

The meeting then adjourned

RESIDENT MAGISTRATE’S COURT.

Geraldine—Monday, Sept. 14th, 1885

[Before (I. C. S. Baddeley, Esq., R.M., and Dr Fish and Captain Temple, J.P’s.] BREACHES OP TOWN BY-LAWS. W. S. Maslin, for allowing one cow, and Thos. Corkery, for allowing one horse, to wander, were each fined 5s and costs. BREACHES OF TEE POLICE OFFENCES ACT, G. W. Westropp was charged with allowing six head of cattle to wander on the Woodbury Road. Constable WiUoughby explained to the Bench that it was only by accident the cattle were on the road. Mr Westropp had lately removed to the Orari Bridge, and the cattle were simply making back to the paddock where they were accustomed to run. The case was dismissed with a caution. A. Reid, for allowing 10 head of cattle to wander on the Woodbury Road, was fined £1 and costs. CIVIL OASES. [Mr Slack, J.P., here took his scat on the Bench. 1 The civil cases B. Bailey v. Win. Guildford—Claim £ll Is, damages for smothering 17 head of sheep, and the cross-action Wm. Guildford v. B. Bailey—Claim £l2 10s, damages for sheep trespass, were by consent heard together. Dr Foster appeared for Mr Bailey, and Mr Hamersley for Mr Guildford. B. Bailey, sworn, said : I received the letter (produced) from Guildford’s son, [The letter was from Mr Guildford, and stated that some of Mr Bailey’s sheep had been trespassing in his paddock for ihree days, and that soma had been smothered in a creek while being driven out of his paddock.] Three days afterwards Guildford came to me and asked me what I was going to do about the sheep which had been smothered. I said there was nothing to excuse his driving out my sheep at night from his paddock. I told him I had sent him a letter (put in) about them. If ray sheep had done him any damage I said I would compensate him, but he said he would never seek for that, I then told him I would hold him responsible for the sheep destroyed. I told Guildford it was my wish that the boundary fence between us should be kept in order, and I paid half the cost of repairing it. I renewed an offer to divide the fence, and each take half to keep in repair. I pointed out to Guildford that the gap the sheep went through must have been made by cattle and not by my sheep. The sheep bad only been in the paddock three days before they went into Guildford’s. The fence had the appearance of being broken down by cattle. Guildford had a number of cattle in his paddock. It is a mixed fence, three ssds and three wires. I is not in comformity with the present Act, but the fence was made before the amended Act wag passed. Guilford refused to compensate me in any way for the sheep lost. The present fence was made when I took possession of my property. I do not know when the gap was made. It was not these a lortnight before the sheep were put into my paddock. There were 251 sheep in the paddock, and they were chiefly ewes in lamb. I valued the ewea lost it 14s per head, and the wethers at about 12s per bead. The skins taken off the sheep are worth about 3s each. I received a demand and a summons from Guildford on the 13th August. The demand is dated Bth August, and states that the danmge for trespass must be settled on the 11th. I have seen my sheep in Guildford’s paddocks. Cross-examined ty Mr Hamersley ; The sheep were in my paddock three days before they were smothered. They were all right at three o’clock, as far as I know, on the day in question, the 20th July. I sawlthe fence after it had been repaired, and was satisfied with it. It was sheep-proof bui not cattle-proof. Hugh Mackay sworn, said : I am a shepherd in the employ of Mr Bailey. I remember being sent to Mr Guildford in July last about sheep trespassing. I took a note to Guildford, and he gave me an insolent reply. I saw the sheep that were smothered, there were 18 of them. I knew them to be Mr Bailey’s sheep. Four were in one heap in the creek, and" 14 in another lot. Sixteen w re breed iog ewea, and two were wethers. I examined the boundary fence between

Bailey and Guildford’s. There was a pap where the cheep went through. I first saw the gap after the sheep wen> through. The sheep had been in Mr Hailey’s paddock tliree days. I put them in myself. I could nat say if the gap was there then. I look the measurement of the fence with Mr Bailey. The fence is composed of three sods, and stakes and three wires, The fence was from 2ft 11m to 3ft Gin in height. My opinion is that the gap was made by cattie. There were cattle on both sides of the fence, belonging to Mr Bailey and Mr Guildford. Cross-examined by Mr Hamersley : ] had seen the fence three weeks before lb.) evening the sheep were smothered. I could not say if the fence was good T put the sheep into Bailey’s paddock, I first found the sheep in Guildford’s paddock on the day after the smothering took place. I then saw between twenty and thirty in Guildford’s paddock. The dead sheep were distant something over ten chains from the gap, but were only 2ft -from the fence. The creek is not dangerous to cross if sheep were steadily driven over it. There was a better place to cross two e.hains lower down than where they were drowned. Tins closed Mr Bailey’s case.

Mr Hamersley then called Wm. Guildford : lama farmer, liv ing next to Mr Bailey. On the 19th July Mr Bailey’s sheep were in ray paddock, 1 left them there, and saw them there next day. As I was coming home from work at night I tried to drive them over the creek, but could not. I went home, and it was a fine moonlight night. I sent my boys to drive them out, so that the boys would not be kept from school in the day time. There is no danger or difficulty in driving sheep at night. My boys had often driven sheep out before. In order to drive the sheep to the pound they would have had to be driven over a much worse gully than the one they crossed to get back on to Mr Bailey’s land. I repaired the fence over a year ago. We were both satisfied with it, I thought there were about 250 sheep in my paddock. The shepherd told me there were only 250 in the paddock. I have charged Mr Bailey 3d per head damages. Cross-examined by Dr Foster : The boys drove out the sheep about 7 o’clock. It was a moonlight night, The sheep had to cross the gully to get on to the spur they were on when the boys went to drive them out.

To the Bench : The sheep have trespassed before the date in question. I once sent Mr Bailey notice, and have driven the sheep out and repaired the fence. 1 could not account for so many being smothered. I saw the gap oh the same evening, about two hours before the sheep were smothered. I blame Mr Bailey’s sheep for making the gap. 1 have never heard of or seen my cattle on Mr Bailey’s land. Whenever 1 complained to Mr Bailey aboul the sheep, he complained of the fences.

Albert W. Guildford ; I am son. of William Guildford, and am 3 5 years of ago. The sheep had come in through a gap in the fence, and crossed a gully in the paddock on the spur. We tried to drive them over where we used to lake the horses over. We also tried to drive them over a better place a little higher up. We got them in a mob together, and they ran up the gully to the boundary fence. We followed them and drove them quietly down the hill, and, as they were smothering in the creek in trying to cross, we turned them back, and crossed them lower down. This was about 7 o’clock. It was quite light, as there was a full moon. Wo had no dog, Examined by Dr Foster: I have driven sheep before. There were about 250 of Mr Bailey’s sheep in the paddock. I had not driven Mr Bailey’s sheep out for some time previously. We were about an hour getting the sheep out of the paddock. They broke away from us three times. Wm. Guildford re-called : I sent my boys at night, bo that they would not be kept from school. I live a mile from the school. I could not put tho sheep out myself. I tried to do so. Robert Hammond, sworn, said S I have have experience in driving sheep. I should think there was no danger in driving sheep over a creek on a moonbght night, which they had crossed during the day. I do nut think there would be any risk in allowing boys to drive the sheep. Mr Hamersley, addressing the Bench, said the case must depend upon whether gross negligence had been shown by his client in driving the sheep out of the paddock, Guildford had not ahown any negligence in sending his boys to drive the sheep. They had often driven the sheep before. Mr Bailey was the wrongdoer. He was the originator of the trouble, and he must prove that his loss was caused by negligence. His client based his claim for damages under the sth clause of the Impounding Act 1884, which fixes the rate of damages at 3d per head. Under the Fencing of 1881, 16th clause, the fence is a sufficient one, as it was mutually agreed upon by both parties, as proved by the evidence. On the application of Dr Foster, the case was further adiourned for a fortnight, in order that he might have time to look up authorities bearing on the case. [Before W. U. Slack, Esq., and Captain Temple, J,P.’s.] Geo. Stokes v. Geo. Kruse—Claim £1 6s, for two cords firewood supplied. Judgment by default for amount claimed. The Court then adjourned.