The English Law on Mining on Private Property.

Thames Star, Volume XI, Issue 3552, 15 May 1880, Page 1

The English Law on Mining on Private Property.

The following- case, tried in the Nisi Frius Court at Derby, may be of interest to our readers, arid especially to the members of the mining community. There are several cases both here and at Corotnandel, which are akin, to the. oases adjudicated, upon by the Lord Chief Justice of EngliQ*l^The case of *Wake r. Bedfearn and others, tried before the Lord Chief Jus tied ' of England, and a special jury, at the , Derby Assizes during the present week,, ! and reported at some length ml oar , columns, has settled, so far as a trial at Nisi Frius can do so, an important point of lead-mining-law in favor of landowners in the High Feak mineral districts of Derbyshire, and one which, if it remains undisturbed, must considerably modify the exercise of the rights which are asserted on the part of persons carrying on mining operations in the not altogether well defined territory in Derbyshire known as " The Sing's Field." Under a strong ruling of the Lord Chief Justice it has been held that the rights of landowners are largely correlative to the extensive privileges which miners possess under the mining customs of the High Feak, and the main point of the decision which has just been Arrived at seems to be that mine owners, whilst exercising their statutory and customary powers of obtaining lead ore, must strictly observe the rights of the surface owner, and that, whereas miners have apparently hitherto been in the habit of dealing with landowners as a class rather than as possessing v. individual rights, they must henceforth be careful to observe in regard to each landowner whose minerals they extract, the rights which are given to him individually, and Ihe Acts of Parliament and customs which govern the miners' proceedings. The broad result of the decision - indeed appears to be to secure to the pro-* prietors of the soil more consideration than - has hitherto prevailed at -the hands of persons who claim to .exercise the extensive powers which they ' undoubtedly possess; and in the future where a mine exists—as most frequently is the case—under the landa of various adjoiuing landlords, each land* owner must necessarily be consulted and arranged with before any system of continuous working can be adopted. What the plaintiffs in the action mainly com* plained of was, that the lead under their own estate having beeu exhausted or abandoned, their land, arid the shafts and drifts which have been sunk in them, were used by the defendants as the means of obtaining and approaching the minerals from an adjoining estate, with which the plaintiffs were in no way connected, and .which was even in another liberty. And, moreover that their surface land \ was being encumbered with the spar and spoil brought from a neighbouring wine. As Lord Chief . Justice Gockburu emphatically pointed but,, tbe mineral laws—which alone constitute the miners' title to work at all —distinctly' limit the manner in which it is comptent to them to conduct, their operations, rind itwas impossible, to hold that, merely for.the greater convenience '. and profit of the miner, he could depart; ffoui the conditions imposed upon him so as to be allowed either to use the plaintiff's land for the, purpose of approaching a neighboring estate, or to encumber the plaintiffis surface with "

mineral- substances, which were the undoubted property of the adjoining - landowner, and which ought not to be removed from his land. The .local mining customs, which arc doubtless of great antiquity, originated at a limo when mining operations were much more simple than they novp are, and wheu the obtaining of lead wfjs probably supposed to be of such public benefit as to justify an almost 'entire disregard of the rights of the proprietors of the soil. Notwithstanding the recent decision, however, Derbyshire miners are still in possession of very valuable privileges.-—Derby and Chesterfield Reporter. v