WARDEN'S COURT.

Thames Star, Volume XI, Issue XI, 24 September 1880, Page 2

WARDEN'S COURT.

THIS DAY. (Before H. Kenrick, Esq., Warden.) ' The Miners' Rights. INBPECTOB OF MINERS'BIGHTS V. DQBBB. This was a plaint laid agaiusfc defendant for being engaged in mining'operations without being the possessor of a right. The Inspector of Eights stated that this was a test case, the defendant being quite willing and able to take out a right. Frederick A. Dobbs, sworn, deposed— lam a ship carpenter. I have been engaged for seven or eight weeks on works'in connection with the Caledonian mine. I have cut a set or two, and made a ladder when necessary, but have chiefly been engaged in carpentering about the engine house. I had no intention of evading the law, as if I thought I was liable I would have taken out a right at once lam not permanently employed, and might be working at my trade again shortly.

The Inspector drew the attention of the Court to the clause in the Act which explicitly defined what mining operations were—including tbe erection of' mining machinery in which defendant was engaged. jHis Worship admitted the Act was very explicit, but he did not think its intention was to include tradesmen such as carpenters, blacksmiths, etc., who might be temporarily employed. He would consequently dismiss the case. SAME V. IVEY. This was a similar case, the defendant being the permanent engine driver at the Moanatairi mine. Mr McLaren said that this was also a test case. His Worship pointed out that this was a different case, the defendant being permanently employed. Defendant would be fined Is without costs, and would hare to take out a right at once. SAME V. G. CAKBIOK. Defendant pleaded guilty to working without a right,, but said he had only been on the field 10 months, and had only been working five weeks, lie had not been working for the last three months. Pined Is, without costs. SAM 3V. W. PHILMPS. The defendant was charged with working without a right. Mr Brassey for defendant. Mr McLaren stated that the defendant had been summoned by mistake, through his-name appearing in the company's bj^ks as William Phillips. He Was the possessor of a right Under the name of William H. Phillips.

Mr'Brassey raised the question of"the | necessity of the Inspector himseil holding a right to enable him to institute proceedings in the Court, but it was ove> ruled by His Worship. Mr Brassey then -<ma"de application for costs for defendant and his counsel.

His Worship allowed defendant ss, half a day's pay, but refused solicitor's costs, saying that there was no necessity for defendant employing a solicitor to prove that his name was W. H. Phillips instead iof W. Phillips. He had previously ruled ! that such costs would not be allowed to j the Inspector, unless in a very complicated | j case. I SAME V. BEE XhD PEARSON. • These were similar cases, but the i defendants had taken out rights since the proceedings were iastituted. They were each fiaed Is and costs. SAME V.-"W". : P. STEVENS. Defendant in this case pleaded inability. He was the father of seven motherless children, and could not afford a right. He had been constantly employed for three' or four years, and the former Inspector had never pressed him. Representations on his behalf had been made to Mr McLaren, but he had, nevertheless, instituted proceedings. His Worship said it was a hard case, no doubt, but the Inspector had only done his duty in having the case before the Court. IS either the Warden or any of the officers had power under the Act to remit tbe right. It was their duty to see that the law was carried out and not make fresh ones. The defendant would be fined in the nominal penally of Is without costs.

After a formal application by Mr Brassey in the case re the Little Sissy claim the Court adjourned.