M-3LUE SPUR MINING NEWS.

Tuapeka Times, Issue 1, 15 February 1868, Page 3

M -3LUE SPUR MINING NEWS.

' Sjom our Own C/'ukespoxdent.) - Iviie of the'ifcost s/rious questions at „ Wpnt affecting the Blue Spur "'miners is i" of blasVng powder. At preC |y tliere is no pooler to be had either I I^awrence or Duiksdin, and a number ? Mbm: companies luve tunnels in readijl ff^^^jjlia^ing, am will soon have to v m^^^^S^^^^^' nn^ a supply of proera^/v&yiWa^pnggt the companies Who havd tunnels either in progress or Hmpleted\ . and are ; in want, of powder,- ' Mi Morrison ''and Co., Kejypie and Co., and Co., Hall and <y., M'Nale and ,£jo., the PerseAerence Co., and the Great /Extended Co. Jt is a maxim amongst 'commercial inei, that a demand soon ensures a supply 'but the nraxim does not seem to hoVltoO^m this case, as powder has beeiLsj£h scar^tean^ teai *"" A ??^ : length_ of time, r 3 *^c l<pof^ price f or'ffaDfana tf \yr^\j^^i^ on the Spur, during ■ias&ien. monsis has been tenpdnce if, and whei/ftve consider that the j in Melbourie seldom exceeds 6d. (per lb., an ample^iargin for profit must Jm&- >/ c? 1 ' e large xvai? companies have not ußmtod much betefit from the long period Hppet weather, that we have had, on H&wmt of the .Veat expense entailed in ■feedpng the r£es in repair on account of ffljnnh srous landlips, and the demand for ffllwat^ 1 has bek less than usual as the lisma er races generally have been full to II over [owing. [The rate of wages ih the If sluicing claims) ('continues at the old rate |l per da^for eight hours work. X&e workmenjin several of the 1 claims M'f 01 an * n F ease °^ wages to £3 10s. jn I week, a shop time ago, but the claim- [,\ *lers would not concede the' advance ILjid for, and tie men resumed work at ■Hold rate. The expenses of working SB- cement clnms arc very l/eavy, and ™B«y the ban"/s have reduced £he price of |D1 to £3-154 per oz., which] with blastl«?pow^er ai/11-M. perlb., tells materiißH'oirwej>/ofits of shareholders. r«Borriwn &nd Co. are' hisy washing lHH).ni jhisls likely to provi one of the 'VJ "tf^r they have eveijhad. vMpTfestone and Co. are cutting anew •^ r l dnthe>s 99 u th side o; Holy Joe's ll ß^flf trafsferred the W»,e^orion of th\i r old 'tail race to LLM utc ? SO l and P art jVan<l it now forms U^fcoitjajpn of MouatVdCo.'s race. W|e*verance Coms^ are con . alew dam on thepuH^om slope Samuel'spid ekfc^. Company's ground is with, skill a/d economy^ f^^fcteJrJCo.,amliToja. the positio\ l^^B *y' 0 R they ouglt to be hand■H^nikrated for tteir labor. the Provincial Governminers to send, consider g the re in |H^H^H^H^H^H^H^l£i [. If lphlet C'^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^H resent r^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^H^h&ies for n^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^P 7 ery\ieved 'and \deed '*^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^m win© imions IUS «onorilx r j .\ 6$6 $-

,\. . .„„ ■„„T i/asrC roker, War jfeKX&^TK concemin S sth -Ueceip^ j eiice ftrea ftt B (Woe) £0/ respondent. Mr. M'Gij /^as open the case, \\ 'f Mr. Keen sai/thaf he must object, & > i'ntend\d to7 sn °w that appellants /j :/ possessed / no locus stavdi in Cc| they haViW failed to comply withf Slat SectiAof the Goldfields .Act, wl providj/W, when axy person de§ to a^P^jxVhe shal£ within five d ; gir/tiotice bVppea/in writing,- to a yarden, cwiaWo fa other parbs~fov[ \ case" The no^c/had been duly gi n to the Wardenttmt the notice had j been served on lVpondent until the 1 January — just thW-seven days after] hearing. \ | Mr. M'Gregor sWtted that this j a Court of EqnityV an d surely resj dent had had plenty^ time to get up case, and need not w press a bai point of law. It wouY \> c f ar more sa factory to all parties V the case to proved on its merits. V would ask ] Keen to withdraw his teVical objecti Mr. Keen declined. \ Mr. M'Gregor proceed<L o argue t the appearance of respov nt wag waiver of the informality, & was he . at considerable length. \ His Honor said that the fiVj ays , y vided in the 81st Clause AvaV; nce 1c1 c tended to fourteen days ; but, \ cour , the same objection would hole£ O( j the notice had not been servei n x i spondent until thirty-seven dayw The first step in this case wouldK prove service of notices, whichVp M'Gregor might now proceed to do. V \ Mr. M'Gregor could not deny thaw ; notice had not been served until the t L mentioned by Mr. Keen ; but urged i arguments before adduced by him, i . hoped 1"3 Honor would overrule . objection, i His Honor could not do this. objection sustained, and appeal c seiuently dismissed, but without costs t Fitzgerrald v. Munroe. — Claim of £1 i /damages for assault. Mr. Keen (fi 'Mr. "Ward's Office) appeared for plaini and Mr. M'Gregor for defendant. Mr. Keen stated the case. On the January Plaintiff was at Evans' I races with his wife and family, and f endant was also there. About six o'cl p.m., plaintiff was in his gig, about return home, when he saw defend; jump into Ms (plaintiff's) dray, wh contained his (plaintiff's) three child: and female servant. Plaintiff had 1 some words with defendant during ■ day, and he called to defendant to coj out of the dray ; but defendant replie^ "HI see you d first." Plaintiff « wtnt to the dray, and was in the adj getting in, with the intention of turnj defendant out, when defendant stri plaintiff three lisavy blows en tho lie with the handle of tlie whip which V in the dray. Plaintiff fell, or jumf out, anxt, upon turning, found defends had gone. He called _— -—^ ' ' John JFitzserral' 1 ' -*n*o,"~»emg swor deposed to all tbc facts as stated by ij Keen, and in cross-examination by ~M M'Gregoi;, admitted that he had had good deal of drink, chiefly gingerbeer ai lemonade ; but swore that he was n drunk — n^ver was drunk in !:■$ If DeniecLAaving thrown a b&ttlo i-.h iM ir roe. j^dmiitadUliJi.jrjK^ struck Mr,n<'i'? the face,' oi> a r .cvious ococ^ioi slmie day; but "did so because Munr< lifted a stone, which witness" thought 1 was going to throw at him. William Banks, farm servant to plaii tiff, deposed to being driver of the plaii tiff's dray on the Ist January. Saw th assault. Denied having given-^Munro leave to ride in or get into the draj Saw Munroe get in. Heard plaintiff tel him to get out. Heard Munroe refuse Saw plaintiff getting into the dray, an< saw defendant raise a whip and striki plaintiff two or three blows on the hea( with the heavy end. Cross-examined Fitzgerrald may have been a little drunk. Munroe may have received permission tc get into the dray without witness knowing it. John Holmes" and Stephen Shea substantially corroborated the other witnesses. Holmes, in reply to Mr. M'Gregor, said that he heard Fitzgerrald call Munroe a "hound," and order him, in very rough language, to leave -the dray. This closed plaintiff's case. Mr. M'Gregor addressed the Judge for defendant. He urged that the whole affair was 'a " scrimmage ; " that early in the day an altercation took place between the parties, who were drinking, and that plaintiff violently assaulted defendant ; that later on, defendent received permission to ride home in a dray which Banks had charge of, and that upon getting into it, he was struck on the head with a bottle, and in self-defence struck out. He hit plaintiff, doubtless, but without intention, and under severe provocation. He called George Munroe, the defendant, who deposed -to have been assaulted in the bar of Evans' Hotel, on the day in ques- •■ tion, by plaintiff. In the evening, having : t the permission of banks to ride home in"' j a dray which Banks had charge of, 'he c g»t into it, and was immediately ordered c tog^t out, in an insolent manner^, He and- 1* There were no ctftUren, or m * \[nesU,. ex pense3 not tojg accoul - , |

fered,/o protect their property, wKen the defendant Cowap assaulted the female pWiitiff with a stock-whip, a proceeding w/iich the learned Council characterised as cowardly to the last degree. He called Donald M'Kinnon, -who deposed that, on the Bth January, about three o'clock a.m., he was awoke by a noise outside his house. Got up ; saw defendants on horseback. Dressed, and went and hid himself in a flax bush Defendy.it-* .;?i.i , and drove his cattle away, lie cation io his wife, who joined him, and together they endeavored "to prevent defendant.; | from driving the cattle, after doina: a j deal of mischief, and laming a, cow. D-:-.-fendents desisted ; and then Cowan - ore of the defendants— violently assaulted i witness's wife with a stock- whip. 13 0 .-,w i it done, and heard his wife scream. (Iv Keen put a few questions, but decLn further to cross-examine tho witnens Mary M'Kinnon substantiated hvrhv band's' evidence : and in cross-exaniiiv - tion admitted having carried a stick, bi * denied that she had u:->ed it, or that sh broke it while out. Mr. Keen addressed the learned Judg: For defendants, bated of the cloudlu: so eloquently placed round it by hi° ' Friend, the case assumed a very different ispect. The facts were these : Mr , Ireweek was a runholder, and Mr. M'Kinnon was depasturing cattle on Trewceks run. M'Kinnon had resorted bo every device and every trick to delude Treweek. He had even told lies, and lenied that the cattle were his. Treiveek determined to test the matter ; and was about to drive the cattle to the pound, when he was prevented by the plaintiffs . The female plaintiff was am led with a stick, which she broke across Oowap's back, and otherwise so misconlucted herself that "Cowap threatened to Chastise her husband if he did not preVent her from doing further mischief. | r. Keen continued at some length to Vue that, Avhereas Treweek was the \l owner of the run, he was in the I P\rmance of a legal act when he was i m Vantably interfered with by the | l)ll )la -Ms. He called | J \ Treweek, who deposed :lam a I Tsor\ and own tlie rmi on wllicll | lives. Some time since, I s asked V nmon w ] 10 owned a number of l cattle v\u were runn i n g ne ar liis house. IHe said V^ not know . -t ] iey were no t V lus .- in A asked him since, and have 5 always ha<V ce \ sanie reply O n the Sth January, .\i^ erm i ne d to find their I owner ' by "Nuading them ; and Cowap ; i consented tiL^ me We went at J about five a ; m\^ when we neared t ] ie cattle, M Kmi\ Rpran g f rom under a flax bush, and »W my rein. His wife then came up, arl assisted her - i uis ban-l in preventing us i\ x \\ v [ V i n(f the cattle. a Seeing that a greafc turban * c waß in ce ly \to take place, we \ j heard Cowap tiVsay to M'Kinnon, W m j oil > t 9 t O p *\',mv wife from dojngV^ y a ] ul you .» i}|saw Mrs M'Kinnon wiill a \ ong it- fttick, and M'KinnonW arm ed with ' ( /l{ones. \ \ i, pSamuel Cowap, sworn, \ TO berated the c - 1 vidence of last witness, ai swore that f- ' Mi 3. M'Kinnon broke a iL^ acrosa foss a ! )ack. \ d | His Honor having ascerta> C( j .^at no '* oia would be demanded, di^ sse( j the fee, le. narking that Treweek rfa Cowap lib performing a legal act -iu n they le interfered with by M'KinL-j an ' ( i ■, \ iwife. He could not accept pl\ti2"'e °*' <L,cunt of the tranpaction. C:i'X t i;;;. 3 | iMs«ed, without costs. \

■ Wednesday, 12th Foh-uarv, 1868 \ ■ t Morris (apoellartt) v. Frfe (respondent 1 Yn this case Sir. M'Grejfor. on behalf X ttppelknt, moved th 3 Court to grant cw U. tt'e stated that it was iin| appeal against t ttcisiin of Mr. WavdenvCroker, in a case lWdVoTv.c time since. | The defendant wlow 1 avmg been fined gave notice oi amealj'but never v/enfc {,w furtln v ; ainl nay it appeavud had abaidoncd the case. Aanoticc of appeal had) bean serve. l on T?m, h<; (Fyfe) had emjjWed counsel at cotoderiible expense ; aid no noticy of dianiitinuanco Lad been %ervod on Fyfe. l|r. Keen opposed on -ehalf of il orris. Not process had bfon -Miit out ; and nothing Lad boon done savo to serve a notitts of intention to a ocal. If, without feeing summonsed,]- Fyfo ohose to erapl(y council to defend i en so which, as yet, had no existence, tLt was his own matte*. Mr. Keen argied against the motiok at some length. HisjHonor refused to i.ike any order, considering that no suit had been commenced.' „ »/ „.-'"' . A liHM — •- fore Ma J° v |^BM^T^^?->V J MWtint, ol^^^Kthmhjk Sergj'mithjYas I in £ /a/i^^^^^^^^^^^l Gi'iffliotel. from evident wa.<J%^^^^^^^^^^^^| Pran^at Aii^g|i^^^^^^^^^^H^| roket-o vfS *T~f^H^^^^^^^^^^^^^H ;reat\ neanW^jp-S'.U^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^H