Thank you for correcting the text in this article. Your corrections improve Papers Past searches for everyone. See the latest corrections.

This article contains searchable text which was automatically generated and may contain errors. Join the community and correct any errors you spot to help us improve Papers Past.

Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image

THE PUKEHINAU CASE.

Before the Warden in Chambers. Yesterday was fixed for the hearing of the objections to Mr Booth’s application for a licence to occupy this ground for gold mining purposes. The application was as follows: ' “ Grahamstown, 4th March. “ To the Warden, Grahamstown. “Sir, —I hereby apply’ for a licence under the Gold Mining Districts Act, 1871, to occupy' for gold mining purposes an area of 5 acres 2 rood 2 perches as shown on the plan lodged herewith. The ground applied for is on the Shellback Creek, bounded by Clarkson’s, Berkley' Castle, Herald, and Harbor View claims, and lately' known as the property of the Pukehinau Gold Mining Company. The pegs are distinguished by the mark V.

“ Walter Booth. “Name of the claim ‘ White Rose.” “ W. 8.” To this the following objections were raised : “ Grahamstown, “ April, 8, 1872. “To the Warden, Grahamstown. “Sir, I Patrick Kelly, of Grahamstowu, miner, hereby' give notice that I object to the grantmg of the application made on the 4th day of March, 1872, by Walier Booth, for a licence to occupy for gold mining purposes under the provisions of the Gold Mining Districts Act, 1871, the area in '■such application mentioned, and that the grounds of my objection are a previous lawful occupation by me of the area the subject of such application or of some part thereof.—Yours, &c.. “ Patrick Kelly.”

Robert Davidson, Richa-d Loughlin, James McGuire, Alexander Agnew, Thomas Ba-rd, and J. D. Wickham had also lodged objections to the granting of licence on like grounds, but these were withdrawn some days ago, and only Kelly' Wickham and Baird remained as objectors, and eventually Kelly only. Mr Tyler was retained for Baird, Mr Macdonald for Kelly, and Mr Rees for Booth. After waiting for about two hours it was stated that the objections had been withdrawn, and the matter was consequently not gone into. The case was settled on the following terms ■ “Grahamstown, June 19, 1872. “On behalf of the applicant, Walter Booth, I hereby agree to allow the objector, Patrick Kelly, one quarter of the shares in the claim or company to be formed to work the claim pegged out by' Booth, and named the “ White Rose,” formerly the “ Pukehinau," on the Moatiataiari Creek. “W. L. Rees, “ Solicitor for Walter Booth.” The licence will be granted to Booth on Monday 7 .

Permanent link to this item

https://paperspast.natlib.govt.nz/newspapers/TGMR18720620.2.17

Bibliographic details

Thames Guardian and Mining Record, Volume I, Issue 218, 20 June 1872, Page 3

Word Count
391

THE PUKEHINAU CASE. Thames Guardian and Mining Record, Volume I, Issue 218, 20 June 1872, Page 3

THE PUKEHINAU CASE. Thames Guardian and Mining Record, Volume I, Issue 218, 20 June 1872, Page 3

Help

Log in or create a Papers Past website account

Use your Papers Past website account to correct newspaper text.

By creating and using this account you agree to our terms of use.

Log in with RealMe®

If you’ve used a RealMe login somewhere else, you can use it here too. If you don’t already have a username and password, just click Log in and you can choose to create one.


Log in again to continue your work

Your session has expired.

Log in again with RealMe®


Alert