WARDEN'S COURT.

Thames Star, Volume VI, Issue 1834, 18 November 1874, Page 2

WARDEN'S COURT.

THIS DAY.

(Before W. Feasek, Esq., Warden.)

H. GOLDSMITH V. JOHN GBAHAM

This was a charge brought bj the Mining Inspector, the defendant, being the registered owner of a claim on the Waiotahi, having neglected to continuously work the same from day to day in accordance with the terms of the Goldmining Districts Act, 1873.

It appears that the claim comprises 21 men's ground, and is situated .on the Waiotahi Spur, adjoining the Waiotahi, City of York, Exchange, and Prince Imperial Companies. It was marked out on the 19th of November, 1873, so that it has been just twelve months in existence.

Henry Goldsmith, Mining Inspector, deposed—-That tho . case was broHght under the 42nd section of the Act. The claim was called the Royal Crown. (Witness then described the position of the mine.) It was registered on the 19th of November, 1873. The defendant had failed to continuously work, the ground during all that time. The claim was on the lease applied for by Wickham, and no objection was lodged at the time the application was granted. By defendant: I am not aware that there was ever a lawsuit about the claim. There might have been when it was called the Prince of Wales.

A. J. Allom proved the Eegister of the Royal Crown claim, John Graham being the registered owner.

■ defendant said the ground had been in dispute for a long time, and he could not do anything. Did not know that Wickham had applied for a license before he heard it in the box to-day. Knew that if Wickham got the license that he (witness) would get a share. Mr. Macdonald informed him tho other

day that*Wiclrliam wished to withdraw his money for the license, and that he (witness) could have the ground. This was the first time he had an opportunity of working it. The Warden declared the ground to bo forfeited, and said if he believed defendant had known the license had been applied for by Wickham and neglected then to lodge an objection, he would have made him pay costs : but under the circumstances, defendant having pleaded ignorance, the Court would forego costs. He remarked further that it was disgraceful that one or two people could have separate demands over a piece of ground to the exclusion of some one who would turn it to profitable account. The Court then adjourned.