RESIDENT MAGISTRATE'S COURT.

Thames Star, Volume X, Issue 3340, 5 September 1879, Page 3

RESIDENT MAGISTRATE'S COURT.

THIS DAY. (Before H. Kenriok, Esq., R.M.)

TH«EATBNIXtt TO DAMAGE PHOPEBTY. John Cleave, Edward Young and John Nionis, on remand, with threatening ! to destroy a certain shaft, the property of Francis Daykin, at Tairua. Mr Miller for defendants pleaded not guilty. ;i| .. iU ( „ . , Mr Brassey appeared for plaintiff, i and stated the case, Which, he said, was > laid under the 87th section of the Jusuco | of the Peace Act ; ,, .. t i Francis Daykin, sworn, deposed—l am j the proprietor of the Reward claim at; Tairua. On the 11th August, I was i asktd to enter into an agreement with the defendants. The defendants signed it on . the 13th, bat I refused, as I had been asked to enter into the agreement under, false representations. . The , .document produced is the notice I served on them not to interfere with the mine. After giving notice, I placed men on to work it. This was .on Monday; on the.Saturday following, the.23rd,, the defendants came on the ground with blasting tools. They laid they had come to commence work. . They commtmeed drilling >a hole- in a rock, right on the edge of the shaft. I asked them to desist, bat they said no, they intended to stay until they were put off. They • drilled the hole, and fired it, and my m*£Mj9& I had to leave off work ■ and go awtjfTl fear a repetition of this offence from what took place last week. By Mr Miller—l am the sole owner of the claim. The tribute agreement was filled in by my, ton. to the filling op of the agreement Cleave came to me and atked me if I would let a piece of the claim on tribute to him. I said I would see when I went up the clam next. day. He wanted me to give them an , agreement which I refused to do. I asked kin if they, had discovered anything and he said no, that he and his mates wanted to prospect for a month. He laid that Toang had got a fair prospect just outside the boundary of the Reward. Young dented getting gold in my claim, and I agreed to let them have it, on ' these conditions. The agreement was drawn up which I refused to sign. I only saw them working once, that was the time tbey were blasting. The place they wen butting was within the disputed ground. J ■ ' By Mr Braisey—The shaft lam slaking is a genuine shaft. It is being put down to connect with the level below. They threatened to injure the shaft. James Smith; a miner in MrDayiin's employ, deposed that the shaft being sunk was the commencement of .Mr Daykia'n workings. It would be about 50 feet to the lower level. I recollect going with Mr Dayktn to tell these men not to interfere in any way with the workings. This was before the blasting commenced. A heavy blast would have the ' affect of destroying the sides of the hole or shaft. We had to leave off work while they were blasting., ■ When the men commenced blasting, Mr Daykin ' went to them and requested them to desist, and tbey said they would not unless turned off. The ikaft is about 7or 10 feet deep. If they went on blasting I suppose it would injure the shaft. Cross-examined—The hole was commenced on the 18th August. I have no idea bow deep it was on the 23rd. It Bight be about 4 feet deep. We were working ap to last Friday. We were aaving a lot of stuff from the shaft for crushing. Mr Daykin told them to stop blasting after the first shot. . Gold was found near the stone they were blasting. After the 33rd August they always maintained the right to,work there. By the Bench—The shifting of the boulder, would have injured the shaft. John Richards, and Francis Daykin, junior, gave corroborative evidence. Mr Miller addressed the Court on behalf of the defendants. .He considered the case should not have come before the Court, as it was purely a mining question. The complainant had let a portion of the mine to the defendant! and now attempted to escape carrying out his contract with them. ' Tht case was dismissed with costi, £7 2i.