WARDEN'S COURT.

Thames Star, Volume VII, Issue 1899, 3 February 1875, Page 2

WARDEN'S COURT.

THIS DAY (Before W. Fjuser, Esq., Warden.)* HUGH iI'ILHONE V. JOHNH. SALMON. \ The plaint in this case, laid by thY Inspector of Miners' flights, was ibSs defendant not being the holder of a Miner's Right issued under the provisions of the Goldmining District Act or otherwise, was, on the 22nd day of January, 1875, engaged or employed in mining operations : wherefore the complainant claimed that defendant be adjudged liable to a penalty according to the provisions of the said Act, and that the defendant.may be ordered to pay the amount of such penalty, and that the Court make such other order as it may think fit in the premises. ' " ■.. Defendant disputed the charge.. For the Inspector Mr J. E. Macdouald, who said it was well-known. that. Mr Salmon had an interest in the Imperial City Company, and that he had been occupied about that mine practically. It would be in evidence that he had been seen from day to day in a mullocky coat. He had the management of the mine, and not content with that, it appeared that he superintended the labor, and on one occasion he put the mine management itself into actual operation to the extent of himself assisting in the labor. , His Worship reminded counsel that ho need not have touched upon the fact of defendant being a shareholder in the company, inasmuch as a shareholder could go and loolc at the operations being carried on in a mine, and there was so necessity for him to take out a miner's right. All the prosecution had to prove was that defendant had been engaged in mining operations. Mr Macdonald said that was just the example that the Inspector of.Miners' Eights wanted to get hold, of, in „ order that a warning might be given to other persons. . - ... Mr Macdonald put in Gazettes pro* claiming the Acts. Hugh M'Hhone, Inspector of Miners' Bights for the Hauraki District, deposed that he knew the Imperial City, which was within the Hauraki Gold Mining District. 'Hewwass s complainant in this case. Knew nothing from personal observation of the facts upon which the charge was founded. The, offence took place on the 22nd. . . ;., ,< Mr Salmon—lf you know nothing you have no power to bring the action. John Dunsmuir deposed—rThat he WM employed in the Golden Hill Tribute. The tribute was worked tip to the Imperial City shaft; was working in that tribute on the 22nd. Had been working there a week or two. The quartz was brought up the Imperial City shaft and placed in the paddock. Witness sometimes assisted to bring up the quartz. Witness did not see Mr Salmon oftem down the mine.' Didn't think he saw him on the 22nd. ■„ . , .

Mr Macdonald asked witness what M* Salmon generally did down the mine* ~...

. Mr Salmon objected. Mr. Macdonald must keep to the day on which the offence was alleged to hare been committed. . ' ' '■ ■'•;'"

By Mr Salmon: I,did not see you down the mine on the 22nd.

Bichard Stone deposed that he wig working for Henry Kawderi. Knew the Imperial City quartz paddock. Had carted quartz and mullock from there. He had carted some on last Friday week, to the Prince Alfred battery. Mr Salmon helped witness fill the first load of stuff, Winess took that to the battery, and then came back for more. Nobody was tlieie besides Mr. Salmon and witness. . It wag witness' place to load his dray. Cartera were paid so much for loading. By Mr Salmon—l was paid absolutely to fill the cart. I expected nobody to help me. Had no right to expect help. You did remark that it was hot, and said "■ I will sling in a piece or two." You helped me no more that day. I don't know what you helped me for—whether or know you wished to get the stuff away. By his Worship—l hare no miner's right. (Laughter). By Mr Salmon—You Jiad something like the same clothes on then as you hare on now. ' Mr Salmon wished to make a sHRnt upon oath. ""' His Worship said he was quite satisfied without any statement;. Still he said it would be far better for persons in the position of defendant to hare a miner's right to pull out, as it would sare them a lot of trouble.

Mr Salmon: Had I received the slightest intimation from Mr Mcllhone that it was necessary, I should have done so.

His Worship said it was not necessary to have a miner's right. If he (His Worship) had been satisfied that defendant had been working for -the purpose of facilitating operations in the mine, he must have imposed a penalty, but he now gave defendant credit for being a better sort of a fellow than ho had previously taken him to be. From his former knowledge of defendant, he, should never have accused him of being good - natured enough to give assistance to any one. But the fact was that no one could touch pitch without being defiled, and had defendant not been seen helping the carter he would have given him costs against the Inspector. Now he would dismiss the case without costs. , He felt sure Mr Mcllhone was satisfied that defendant was not helping < the man in- the manner which would have rendered him liable to the law. The fact of his having had the same clothes on as he now wore (Mr Salmon was dressed in the perennial coat of blue, and his other garments of the usual cut) was sufficient evidence of the. fact.

Mr Salmon here showed the Warden a number of the Evening Star in which a local appeared, announcing that a summons had been issupL against a certain mining agent for a bleach of the mining

regulations. He complained to his Worship that that local had appeared (announcing the fact above stated) before he (Mr Saljjyn himself) had been aware that the sMnmons was issued. He wanted to knowM>w it was that the paper had become ■psessed of the intelligence. He felt that there was something wrong where. He might, he said, have j 6T -anted on seeing that local to escape an penalty. Hft°he Court then adjourned.