WARDEN'S COURT.

Thames Star, Volume IIII, Issue 1745, 6 August 1874, Page 3

WARDEN'S COURT.

* THIS DAy. (Before W. Fkaser, Esq., Warden}

ADJOURNED CASES. ; Pumping Association v. linporial City/ On the application of Mr. Macdonald, this case was adjourned to the 19fch. Pumping Associatipn v. the Otago, was adjourned till the same date. ; Pumping Association v. the Hazlebank. On the application of Mr. Mtcdonald this case was adjourned for a week. Smith v. Stewart. Mr. Mac<?onald applied for an adjournment for a week. [ Granted. ... Thomas t. Smith. On the application of counsel this case wai adjourned fora week. HUGH M'ILHOXE V. JOHN JAMES. This was a complaint by the Inspector of. , Miners' Eights, that,.the defendant is in dtscnpation of land, of which he is not the ■ -''owner ; ; the said land being within the: district of the Uauraki goldmining disMr. Macdonald for the defendant withdrew the case. , , ; St'ILHONE V. J. W. WALKER. < , : .. - This was a complaint by the Inspector of Minen;' Eights that defendant; not; being the owner of a miner's right or business liconsc, did, on the third day of August, occupy land within the FJauraki Goldmining District, said land being within the district named in the Goldfields 0 Act of 1873. . \ Mr. Macdonald appeared for the com-' plainant [-\ Mr. Tyler for the defendant. Mr. Macdonald said the question was, is a person holding a goldmining license, obliged to hold a miner's right also. Mr. Tyler contended that his client was the owner of the Queen of the Thames ground, but not the occupier. The Queen of the Thames Goldmining Company were the occupiers. His Worship said that learned counsel ' must use the word owner in the sense set forth in the, Act. , Mr. Tyler argued at length that his client although the owner of the land was not in occupation, and was not liable to hold a miner's right. The defendant was the owner, but the Queen of the Thames : CompanyTVerboccupying.it. / His Worship said he may hold a right to occupy a place, but he was not obliged to occupy it, but thought that the dedefendant was the occupier. Taking the; Act altogether in this case, if a person took a lease for a piece of land he had never seen, he would be the holder, but could not be compelled to ocoupy. In the case of rates, if there wa3 no tenant the chirge would fall on the landlord. , Mr. Macdonald asked the Court what it thought occupation on the goldfield was.. His Worship said occupation com- ; menced immediately the pegs were put in the ground. • Mr. Tyler said the summons set forth; tßat the defendant on the 3rd day of: August was in possession—it was not,Bo ; there were two phases in the case. First he contended the defendant was notin occupation — occupation meant actual possession of the ground. ; His Worship held that the defendant was still in possession, by virtue of the license ta^ en out in his name, and was, therefore the owner. ? : : Mr. Tyler said that he did not think; the question would be argued with so much seriousness, or he would have been ; more fully prepared to meet it. The section of. the Act stated that the owner: might or might not occupy the land taken up. His Worship said the Queen of the: Thames, ward not the owners, and had no; business there: the natives were actually* the owners of the, land, but the license was f for a term. He looked upon that case in; this light, that the defendant was the; occupier and owner of the land in question. Mr. Tyler further argued the case; Mr.;. Macdonald replied. ' : His Worship said he would dismiss the case. Defendant, being the holder of a license, was hot required to--hold a miner's right. Case dismissed.' , v / SAKE V. WALTEB SULLY, AGENT, i The plaintiff coiaplained that the. defendant was in possession of land in the Hauraki District, he not being the holder! of a miner's right. : Mr. Macdonald for the plaintiff. Mr. 'Macdonald said the defendant was in the possession of certain ground, namely, the Queen of England (SnvliDg Beauty) claim, and was not the holder of a miner's right. , His Worship inquired if the evidence was similar to the last case. Counsel replied that it was. Case dismissed. Mr. Sully applied for costs, 10s— granted. HUGH Jt'ILHONE V. THE NONPABEIL G.M.CO. The plaint states that the defendant, not being the owner of miner's right isS^pd; under the provisions of the Gold . Mining Districts Act, 1873, was on the third day of August, 1874 within the Hauraki Goldmining District engaged in mining operations. Mr. Scott stated that the company held a miner's right, which expired on the 15th of. July, and thought that a month's . grace would have been allowed. ■ He did not deny having been engaged in mining pursuits. Plaintiff said that the case was brought forward to inform the public that there was no monthly grace allowed after a miner's right had expired for its renewal. His Worship in giving a decision said that no .doubt the press would give publicity to the subject, and that it was imperative for holders of licenses or leases to take out miners' rights if actually engaged in mining pursuits, and that the natives should have their due-. As the case had been brought forward by the Inspector of Miners' Eights as an cx:iD)];!e he would fine defendant nominally. Fined Is. and costs, £2 12s. Court adjourned.