AN IMPORTANT MINING CASE.

Thames Guardian and Mining Record, Volume I, Issue 40, 22 November 1871, Page 3

AN IMPORTANT MINING CASE.

At the Warden’s Court on Tuesday a case of much interest to the mining community came on for adjudication. Its importance will be seen at a glance on mention of the fact that the issue involved a question of hundreds and thousands of pounds. Itandell v.Hadley was an action brought under the 37tli section of the Mining Statute for the recovery of damages for trespass on a claim on the Stafford Reef. The plaintiff represented the William the Great Company, and the defendant the South Golden Fleece Quartz Mining Company. The facts of the case were all admitted by both parties, and the whole matter resolved itself into a point of law. The plaintifl was the original holder of the ground under his miner's right, and he maintained his title under the by-laws until August last, when he abandoned it, and marked out the ground uner the leasing regulations ; performed all the necessary preliminaries and lodged with the Warden an application for a lease, all work in the meanwhile being suspended. Subsequently he was summoned by Hadley to show cause why the abandonment of the ground should not he declared and possession ordered, and in the case which was heard on the 29th August, lie failed to prove to the satisfaction of the Court that lie had complied with the by-laws ; abandonment was therefore adjudicated and Hadley took possession, which lie had retained ever since, and had been working the working the ground. The 37th section of the Statute contains a provision for the proteetection of applicants for leases, pending inquiry and consideration by the

Government, and under that section Randall now summoned Hadley, to have him declared a recover damages, and to secure his removal. For the plaintiff, Mr. Casey argued that nothing could be more explicit and concise than the language of the section ; that the defendant had not the shadow of a title inasmuch as the plaintiff possessed a right anterior to the adjudication of abandonment by the Warden, — a right acquired the moment the application was made for a lease. For the defendant, Mr. Martley contended that lie was in legal possession ; that posession had been obtained in the manner and by the process prescribed by the Legislature, and that it would be a mockery if the Warden were to place a man in possession of a claim one day, and be compelled to stultify his decision the next by declaring him a trespasser. To this it was replied that the Warden was not asked to render nugatory his first order ; that in the former case the point decided was one of a miners’ right title, and in the present, one gained by application for a lease —two distinct titles, and two distinct causes for actions. After a lengthy argument, Mr. Cogdon decided that the defendant was a trespasser on the ground. The plaintiff might have had two titles, one good and the other bad ; if his miner’s right title were defective, he could fall back upon bis title acquired under application for a lease, and this lie had chosen to do. This latter title had not been set aside or abandoned, and the defendant’s possession being subsequent to the acquisition of the title, therefore the defendant was a trespasser. At the request of Mr. Martley, the Warden agreed to state a special case for the opinion of the Suprme court, and in the interim granted an injunction restraining defendant from proceeding with further work pending the final settlement. Bendigo Paper.