THE OCEAN VIEW QUAETZ REEF JUMPING CASE.

Tuapeka Times, Volume III, Issue 200, 30 November 1871, Page 7

THE OCEAN VIEW QUAETZ REEF JUMPING CASE.

We have been requested by the writer to publish the following " communicated" article, which appeared in last weeks " Bruce Herald " :—: —

Now that the trespass caßes — Higgins v. Dyer, Dyer v. Higgins — have been heard and briefly reported in the Tuapeka Times, I feel justified in calling the attention of your readers to some of the circumstances attending this case, which have not appeared in evidence. Were the details more generally known, I feel aure that the public would not fail to show sympathy in.. some, jirjactjcal. form with the unfortunate sufferers who have fallen victims to an act of the grossest injustice committed under shelter of the very law that was intended to protect them. It will be fresh in the memory of most; of your readers how the old Canada Quartz Mining Co. spent over 7000 in machinery, races, and work, and collapsed ; how the Table Hill Quartz Mining Co. was formed from the ruins of the old company — tried to work the reef profitable and failed to do so; bow they then let the mine and plant on. tribute to a company of twelve miners ; and how these 12 miners carried on the attempt to develope the reef, and at length gave up in dispair after having worked eighteen months for a nett wages return of about 10s per week per man. Fivß of these persevering and enerqeiic men formed themselves into the present Ocean View Company, to prospect the Ocean View Reef, the existence of which had long been known. The discouraging circumstances under which they started operations may be guessed when it is known that they were unable to find a sixth man willing to join them to complete the party, and that, on discovery of the existence of payable stone, in order to raise a little money they actually sold this sixth share for the small sum of £22.

On the 18th of September the first application for a lease was made, and £20 deposited for survey, &c, and somewhere about this time the claim was marked out in a general way. On the 12th of October, after crushing for over five weeks, the result was made known, which first attracted public attention to the reef. Early in October the Alexandra Company took up ground adjoiuing the Ocean View,- a inatual agreement being made as to the boundaries. It was discovered that Mr. Gillies, -of the Alexandi'a Company, retained on the books of the Warden at Lawrence an old lease, which covered the ground now occupied by the Alexandra Company, and also the ground now claimed by Dyer at the .west end of the Ocean View Claim. Mr. Gillies agreed to allow this old lease to be cancelled. Both Alexandra and Ocean j View claims were therefore pegged off in a manlier thought to be sufficient, O win of to the necessity for cancellation of this old lease, the Ocean View Company were obliged to apply afresh, for a lease, which they did on the 18th October, on which day Mr.' Warden Simpson visited the ground, On the previous

afternoon the Alexandra Company had pegged out their ground afresh, and the Ocean View Company had also pegged out theirs afresh at the same time.

On the 20fch October Messrs. Dyer and Crossan appeared on the ground at 4 a.m. in the morning, and pegged out three men's claims off the western end of the Ocean View Claim, alleging that the Ocean View. Company's pegs and trenches were insufficient. The Ocean View Company thereupon summoned Dyer for trespass. On the 24th the Ocean View Company had occasion to shift their whip on to the "ground claimed by Dyer, whereupon Dyer on Nov. 2, laid an injunction upon them from working, and also sued them for trespass. Since that clafce tlie Ocean View Company has ceased working Their witnesses have been obliged to appear twice at Lawrence, and the end seems as far off as ever, as no decision can be given before the 14th or 15th December, when the appealed case will be tried before his Honor Wilson Gray : — The Ocean View Company were non-suited on their trespass cisc because their pegs and trenches were not exactly such as are required by the Goldfields Regulations in the case of an application for a lease. Dyer was nonsuited in his trespass case on similar grounds, his line of central pegs being absent. Both parties appealed,- and the granting or refusing of the- leases was left in abeyance, to be also decided by Judge Gray. Messrs. Jno. L. G-illies, H. L. Squires, ' and Mark Higgins, none of whom were interested parties, testified clearly to the existence of large and prominent corner pegs and trenches on the Ocein View ground, on the morning of the 18th October. I pass over the various arguments maintained and . points raised on either side, since the mode in which the claims were marked out was the point on which the Warden decided the trespass case. According to regulations the pegs of the Ocean View Company should have been three inches square, 3 feet high, and the trenches 5 feet long and G inches deep. According to the evidence the pegs were about or exceeding three feet high — round pegs, about two inches thick, and the trenches from 4 feet G inches to 5 feet lonff. The Warden ruLdthafc Dyer's ground had not been properly pegged out, as the central pegs along the line of reef were wanting, and yet Dyer, . . . still holds the ground, and the half-dozen honest and simple-minded miners are ousted from their hardly earned property, and after having spent a large sum in law expenses, must wait for another weary month the chances of obtaining a tardy redress at the appeal court of Judge Gray. Ido not wish to attempt for a moment to impugn the decision given by Mr. Warden Simpson, the legal correctness of which, in the strictest interpretation of the JEtegulations is allowed on both sides ; but I deplore the existence of Kegulations precluding the Warden from ' entei*taining any consideration of equity, and allowing the perpetration of so manifest a wrong, giving no option of substitutingfine for forfeiture, or equity for law. Just considsr what these hard-working miners have done, and then what they have neglected to do. They were the prospectors, entitltd to take, had they availed themselves of their right. 1200 feet in length along the reef. They had beeu in actual'occupation, working the ground and employing the full number of haiids for over six weeks. They had deposited £20. with the Government for a lease, and twice made application for the land and duly advertised the application. The Warden bad been upon their ground, and they had asked him to examine their pegs and trenches. What more was required to entitle them to protection ? Then what had they negle/ted t) do? To put in three-inch square pegs instead of two-inch round ones ; to make their trenches 6 to 9 inches longer than they were proved in court to have been. These were the sole points iv which they were guilty of neglect, and should these outweigh all the other precautions they had legally taken? Under another regulation, the person marking out a quartz claim can ask for and obtain protection for 60 days, and then, after posting a protection notice, he becomes quite independent of tbe maintenance or existence of his pegs aud trenches, provided two men be always lcept at work on the ground. Can it be held that the Ocsan View Company were not as much entitled, in equity, to protection as a party who has simply applied for it, and put two men on to work ? It remains yefc to be seen whether the Ocean View Company are not entitled to oblige Dyer to take the eastern end of their ground, if, indeed, the absence of centre pegs has not wholly mullified his title to the ground jumped. How many claims ou the goldfields are pegged and trenched according to law? Ask any practical miner, and he will say not one out of ten. Enough has beeu said, Mr. Editor, to show the nature of the grievous abuse under which the Ocean View Company are Labouring. But they do not stand alone in this respect ; the public at large are losers by the stoppage of the work, the non-circulation of money that would be drawn from the mine ; still more by the injurious tendency of law-suits of this nature to destroy public confidence in mining investments. If the absence or non-main-tenance of a peg or a trench readers

a property, worth thousands of pounds, liable to be entered upon and appropriated by the first outsider who notices the deficiency, the constant sense ofinsecurity, and total absence of control over the causes of that insecurity, must effectually prevent the general public from aiding in the development of the mining interest by investing their capital therein.

I have " said my say," Mr. Editor, and have only to add that tbe further defence of their case should, I think, in common recognition of the services of these prospectors of the Ocean View Eeef h.ive rendered to the Waitahuna and Tokomairiro districts, be undertaken by the genei'al public in these districts, or at least by all who are in-~ terested in any way in mining pursuits. I beg to enclose my card, and to offer a small subscription aB a' commence-

inent. — I am, &c,

Settle.