THE BRIGHT SMILE AND PROVIDENCE CASES.
There seems to have been some misapprehension on the part of the reporters of the Auckland papers in reference to the judgment of the Supreme Court in these ceases. In the Bright Smile case, application for a rule nisi for mandamus prohibiting the Warden from proceeding with the case, the Chief Justice said, “I rule that on the present materials no rule could go, as the Warden was privileged and even bound to hear evidence, to the extent of ascertaining whether he should decline to hear the case, for want of jurisdiction, the defect, if defect, not appearing on the face of the proceedings. I give Mr Rees leave to mention the matter again next week.” In the Providence case, the Chief Justice upheld the Warden’s decision, stating that the Warden had no discretion, but must order the ground to be forfeited. Without miners’ rights, the company could have no title whatever.
Permanent link to this item
https://paperspast.natlib.govt.nz/newspapers/TGMR18711215.2.11
Bibliographic details
Thames Guardian and Mining Record, Volume I, Issue 60, 15 December 1871, Page 2
Word Count
158THE BRIGHT SMILE AND PROVIDENCE CASES. Thames Guardian and Mining Record, Volume I, Issue 60, 15 December 1871, Page 2
Using This Item
No known copyright (New Zealand)
To the best of the National Library of New Zealand’s knowledge, under New Zealand law, there is no copyright in this item in New Zealand.
You can copy this item, share it, and post it on a blog or website. It can be modified, remixed and built upon. It can be used commercially. If reproducing this item, it is helpful to include the source.
For further information please refer to the Copyright guide.
Log in